Details re latest book above (2006) on www.upso.co.uk

REVIEWS OF

BEHIND SHAKESPEARE’S MASK

Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter (Winter 2007)

De Vere Society Newsletter (February 2007)

1.

By Derran Charlton

Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter (Winter 2007)

This excellent and prompting book by Charles Willis is a follow-up to his first two acclaimed books, Shakespeare and George Puttenham’s Arte of English Poesie (2003), and George Puttenham and the Authorship of Shakespeare’s Sonnets(2005). Both explored the life and work of the mysterious writer and poet George Puttenham (1529-91?).

The first book examined the anonymous The Arte of English Poesie(1589), referred to by William Shakespeare, and the second argued that Puttenham may have authored the Sonnets, addressing them to Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford. In his forward to this third book by Charles Willis, Sir Derek Jacobi, a joint-patron of the De Vere Society and one of Britain’s most notable actors, (having appeared in numerous Shakespeare adaptions on stage and film, and has performed Hamletnearly four hundred times professionally), perceptively writes:  

‘The (Shakespeare) authorship question is alive and well, and here is a fascinating additional spotlight on the breathtaking discrepancies, and obvious anomalies in the accepted version of the creation of the Shakespeare canon. Here is another welcomed contribution to serious academic debate, with which orthodoxy finds it so hard to connect, other than through unbecoming vilification. The introduction of George Puttenham as a key, if not prime player in this mesmerizing ‘whodunit’, is presented with a beguiling juxtaposition of fact and analysis, convincingly argued. It could even be true.’

Sir Derek enhanced his considerable opinions when he sent the following examples of his comments to the Shakespeare Authorship Studies conference at the Globe theatre earlier this year:

‘Like a growing number of interested parties, I have had grave doubts for some time now of the validity of the Stratford man’s claim to have written some of the greatest literature the world has produced. Indeed, I must admit that it still seems incredible to me that one mind could possibly have encompassed such a monumental feat. Is there any incontrovertible, unequivocal evidence that Stratford Will was even an actor? But, of course, with doubt comes not discussion but accusation. We are labelled eccentrics and loonies. All these years of academic dedication lavished on the wrong man, must be defended at all costs it seems. Reputations tremble, an industry turns pale, and the weapons of ridicule and abuse are leveled and fired. But at least the battle lines have been drawn, and it is heartening to see how many recruits are enlisting in the ‘Doubters Army’, such as people like myself who cannot reconcile the illiteracy of Shakspere’s offspring, alongside his own deep and adept knowledge of medicine, art, music, geography, law and his almost nonchalant use of metaphor form, for example, sporting activities that were exclusively the pursuit of the aristocracy, not to mention his mastery of history, languages and the intricacies of survival at court. The only evidence of Shakspere’s literary life was produced after he died and is open to dispute. Nothing, while alive, apart from some shaky signatures, puts a pen in his hand. Legend, hearsay and myth have created the writer. I have taken part in thirty-one plays so far, and I can imagine, I can feel, someone behind the words whose education and life experiences, whose knowledge of all strata of society, whose relationships and temperament simply do not fit the grain-hoarder, the money-lender and the entrepreneur (ie. William Shakspere of Stratford). It is not enough to say, ‘Oh, but the works of Shakespeare survive whoever wrote them; it doesn’t therefore matter.’ Yes it does! The disclosure of the real author would enhance not only the historical significance, but also the contemporary excitement of these treasures for both actors and spectators; and it should not be regarded as potential professional suicide, heresy or an actor’s silliness, to come out and say so. The restrictive orthodox analysis must be open to serious considered debate. There must be a challenge to the selective evidence of scholars, based on their desire to justify their man, rather than assess objective criteria. Too much is conjecture, guesswork, allegory and assumption, what one writer has called a ‘well-documented blank.’’

In his work, Behind Shakespeare’s Mask, Charles Willis cogently argues that the Elizabethan writer George Puttenham may have written the first two published works by William Shakespeare, the poems Venus and Adonis (1593) and Lucrece (1594), and they were written as a secret assignment for the Lord Treasurer Lord Burghley. Willis maintains that Puttenham was Lord Burghley’s most skillful writer of Protestant propaganda and material, and the name ‘William Shakespeare’ was used as a penname to conceal Puttenham’s authorship and his connections with Lord Burghley. Willis argues that it was highly unlikely that the poems could have been written by William Shakspere from Stratford, or could have had any connection with him. The poems were printed by Richard Field, also from Stratford, and according to the historical records, the Field and the Shakspere families had long been involved in legal disputes between the years 1556-92. Therefore Richard Field would have known of William Shakspere and his mother Mary (Arden), who during the 1580’s had two Arden, family cousins who were implicated in Catholic plots to kill Queen Elizabeth. Richard Field’s print-shop since the 1570’s, had had a strict policy of only printing works which promoted the Protestant cause, and Field’s first printing commission in 1588, had been a Protestant propaganda paper by Lord Burghley. Field would never have received authorization or permission to print the poems if they had been written by William Shakspere, whose family was directly linked to two Catholic plots to kill Queen Elizabeth. William Shakspere’s mother Mary (Arden) was the daughter of Robert Arden, a prosperous farmer in the Stratford-upon-Avon region. The family were a branch of the Ardens of Park Hall in Warwickshire, an old and large Catholic family. In 1583, Edward Arden was executed for treason having been found guilty of involvement in a failed Catholic plot to assassinate Queen Elizabeth. In 1585, John Arden from Evenly, Northamptonshire, near Stratford, was charged with complicity in the Babington plot. Anthony Babington and thirteen others were found guilty of treason and conspiracy to murder Queen Elizabeth, and put the Catholic Mary, Queen of Scots, on the throne of England. In summation, I found Willis’s excellent book to be immensely stimulating: but the more I worked over it, the more I questioned the validity of some of his original and thought-provoking conclusions. For example, whilst Puttenham’s name was deliberately concealed from all his known works (p. 53), I did not find a ‘Shakespearean-styled’ comparison between his oft-quoted literary writings and the fluidity of Venus and Adonis. Nonetheless, Behind Shakespeare’s Mask deserves the highest of recommendations.                     

2.

By Kevin Gilvary

De Vere Society Newsletter (Feb. 2007)

Behind Shakespeare’s Mask, the third book by DVS member Charles Willis, argues that the narrative poems ascribed to Shakespeare were in fact written by George Puttenham, and were intended to encourage the Earl of Southampton to marry Lord Burghley’s grand-daughter, Lady Elizabeth Vere. Willis has based his conclusions both on the revision of existing historical and literary material, as well as on his own considerable independent research on the life of George Puttenham. Regular readers of this Newsletter will know of Charles’s previous books. In 2003, he released Shakespeare and George Puttenham’s The Arte of English Poesie, which explored the life and works of George Puttenham (1529-91?). In 2005, his second book George Puttenham and the Authorship of Shakespeare’s Sonnets Willis argued that Puttenham had composed the Sonnets at the behest of Lord Burghley to Edward de Vere (the Earl of Oxford), in the hope of effecting a reconciliation between the wayward lord and his wife. Behind Shakespeare’s Mask involves two major revisions of history: first that George Puttenham did not die in 1591, and second, over the authorship of Shakespeare’s narrative poems (Venus and Adonis and Lucrece). Regarding Puttenham’s death, there is little evidence beyond a sworn statement from a servant in 1594, claiming his estate. Willis then produces a number of contemporary references between 1590 and 1605 which suggest that he was alive. The purpose of the elaborate deception, he argues, is that Puttenham was secretly Lord Burghley’s most effective writer, and news of his supposed death, plus a pseudonym, would help conceal his identity. The present reviewer accepts tha George Puttenham might not have died in 1591, but believes the evidence to suggest that he was still alive in the later 1590’s and early 1600’s is very thin. The second, and to me more important revision, concerns the authorship of Shakespeare’s narrative poems (Venus and Adonis in 1593, and Lucrece in 1594). Almost every commentator of Venus and Adonis agrees that this poem was written to encourage the dedicatee (the Earl of Southampton), to marry Elizabeth Vere. Henry Wriothesley, the third Earl of Southampton, was at the time of its publication aged 19. Most people who enter the Shakespeare Authorship debate believe it impossible for a commoner such as Master William Shakspere of Stratford, to have had the temerity to attempt such a public declaration or for the censors, to have allowed it to become public. If not, then who? Certainly, most Shakespeare Authorship sceptics believe that Venus and Adonis was an inside job: Christopher Marlowe survived his ‘fatal stabbing’, and wrote it at the request of Lord Burghley, to tie the Earl of Southampton’s property to his grand-daughter’s; the Earl of Oxford wrote the poem with his eyes on the Earl of Southampton’s fortune (possibly even his body). Another argument suggests that Venus and Adonis was written in the early 1580’s (? by the Earl of Oxford) as a lampoon against Queen Elizabeth’s fascination with the French Duke of Alencon. In Great Oxford (2005), Dr Noemi Magri argues that the picturesque description of Adonis strongly recalls a particular version of a painting by the Italian painter Titian, of Venus and Adonis, painted between 1553-65. Peter Dickson is currently developing a view on Venus and Adonis as a rejection of Catholicism. There is less agreement on the motives for the composition of The Rape of Lucrece. This reviewer fondly believes that after the Earl of Southampton had rejected Lady Vere, the Earl of Oxford’s fury at the disgrace as well as the loss of fortune, urged him to compose Lucrece as an act of vilification of the Earl of Southampton.

Charles Willis’s arguments for attributing Shakespeare’s narrative poems to George Puttenham are extensive and carefully elaborated, being summarised briefly thus: Puttenham was an established writer, whose poem Partheniades (presented to Queen Elizabeth ca. 1580, showed him to be a poet of considerable merit. He had lost a fortune and, as a staunch Protestant, appealed to Lord Burghley for patronage. Burghley encouraged him to write the narrative poems pseudonymously. Puttenham’s legal background explains why there are so many legal references in the poems. Puttenham had an extensive library of classical and European works (which he describes in his book The Arte of English Poesie 1589), and which are echoed in Shakespeare’s narrative poems. Puttenham appears to have travelled abroad between 1548-53. There are many literary parallels between his Arte of English Poesie and the narrative poems. There is considerable supporting material which justifies study.

Did Puttenham write the narrative poems? This reviewer believes not, but is no means certain. This third volume Behind Shakespeare’s Mask is as interesting as the previous two. Without doubt Puttenham’s Arte of English Poesie and the poem Partheniades deserve to be more closely studied, and Puttenham was a major player in the Elizabethan circle of writers. Many Oxfordians will find this book most useful for its advancement of many arguments regarding the Shakespeare Authorship Question.

Shakespeare and George Puttenham’s The Arte of English Poesie (2003)

By Charles Murray Willis

This work explores the mysterious life of George Puttenham (1529-91), one of the most enigmatic characters of Queen Elizabeth I’s reign, who was reputed to have authored the acclaimed anonymously written Arte of English Poesie in 1589, a book closely related to the Shakespeare plays.

Because of his numerous enemies, especially among the Puritans church leaders, Puttenham was forced to conceal his literary activities, but the recently found archive evidence suggests that he could be the ‘missing man’ behind some of the most important anonymous plays that were circulating between 1580-91, many of which are thought to be possible early versions of Shakespeare’s work, such as Ur-Hamlet, written ca. 1587-88.

Archive documents and historical evidence indicate that Puttenham may have had an important secret role to play as a writer of Protestant propaganda between 1578-91.

Included in this work are Puttenham’s Partheniades poems (ca. 1581), his Justification document for the execution of Mary, Queen of Scots (1587), the attributed Civil and Uncivil Life (ca. 1577), retitled as the English Courtier and the Country Gentleman, and more than 70 examples of unpublished archive documents. These comprise four book lists of nearly 250 books or authors mentioned, numerous letters and legal documents indicating his close association with Queen Elizabeth, and a 30 page transcription from an unidentified manuscript of a story, which has similarities in plot with Shakespeare’s Winter’s Tale.

George Puttenham and the Authorship of Shakespeare’s Sonnets (2005)

By Charles Murray Willis

This second book argues firstly, that the young man being addressed in the Sonnets was the 26 year old Edward de Vere, 17^th Earl of Oxford (1550-1604), and secondly, that the writer of the Sonnets was the 47 year old George Puttenham, author of the Arte of English Poesie (1589).

In 1576 when he was aged 26, the Earl of Oxford caused a public scandal by abandoning his 20 year old wife Anne (Cecil), daughter of Lord Burghley, Queen Elizabeth’s Lord Treasurer, and most powerful minister. Burghley was distraught by his son-in-law’s reckless and unruly behaviour and embarrassed by his slanderous accusations. Historical and biographical evidence suggests that Puttenham may have been secretly commissioned by Lord Burghley to try and persuade Oxford to return to his wife and produce an heir. The first 17 Sonnets form a separate group urging the young man to reform his ways and have a son and heir. The number 17 may have been symbolic, as the young man was the 17^th Earl of Oxford.

Puttenham was closely related to Oxford’s family (see Family Chart below), and had been writing poetry for almost 30 years, since 1547, and naturally would have chosen poetry as a way to try and persuade Oxford to return to his wife. The strong emotional feelings which are expressed in the Sonnets may have been based on the close family relationship that Puttenham had had with Oxford since he was a child.

Puttenham was closely related to Oxford’s family via Andrew, (1^st Lord) Windsor’s family. Puttenham’s grandfather Sir George Puttenham was married to the sister of Lord Andrew Windsor, whose eldest son George Windsor was married to Ursula de Vere, sister and co-heir of the 14^th Earl of Oxford. After George Windsor died, his younger brother William, (2^nd Lord Windsor) married firstly, Margaret Sambourne, and their eldest son Edward married Katherine de Vere, daughter of the 16^th Earl of Oxford. 

Katherine’s half-brother was Edward de Vere, 17^th Earl of Oxford. In 1560 George Puttenham married Lord William Windsor’s widow, Lady Elizabeth Windsor.

Puttenham’s daughter Anne, married another cousin, Andrew Windsor.

It could have been this close family connection that was the basis for Puttenham’s sense of ‘duty’ and loyalty to the disgraced Earl of Oxford between 1576-81, when he was aged between 26-31. When his father the 16^th Earl died in 1562, Edward de Vere was aged only 12, and it is likely that Puttenham who was then aged 33, may have become one of his advisers and private teachers, instructing him in the art of poetry. A large proportion of Puttenham’s instructional book the Arte of English Poesie, was written between 1562-68, when Oxford was aged between 12-18. In this book there are many references to the art of sonnet-writing, with examples from the Earl of Surrey, related to Oxford and Thomas Lord Vaux, related by marriage to Puttenham. There are other examples from Sir Thomas Wyatt, and poetry included by Queen Elizabeth and the Earl of Oxford.

Puttenham may have written the Sonnets to Oxford, as a teacher to his talented student, hoping that they would further inspire him to write good poetry.

Behind Shakespeare’s Mask (2006)

Charles Willis’s research on George Puttenham’s life and work makes fascinating reading. The Windsor family were closely related to the Puttenham family via Andrew 1^st Lord Windsor, whose sister married Sir George Puttenham during the reign of Henry VII. We had no idea how closely Puttenham was connected to Shakespeare’s work.

Ivor 18^th Lord Windsor

(Direct ancestor of Andrew 1^st Lord Windsor)

The authorship question is alive and well, and here is a fascinating additional spotlight on the breathtaking discrepancies and obvious anomalies in the accepted version of the creation of the Shakespeare canon.

A welcome contribution to serious academic debate with which orthodoxy finds it so hard to connect, other than through unbecoming vilification. The introduction of George Puttenham as a key (if not prime) player, in this mesmerizing ‘whodunnit’, is presented with a beguiling clarity and forceful juxtaposition of fact and analysis: it could even be true.

Sir Derek Jacobi

(Award-winning Shakespearean actor; member of the Royal Shakespeare Company since 1982)

The poems attributed to William Shakespeare are perhaps the most mysterious and at the same time directly revealing of the works attributed to this man of the theatre. Here the writer’s classical learning, literary grace and sophistication, and deeply felt passion, cannot be swept under the durable carpet argument; "writing for the theatre by a man of the theatre, who else?" The erotic, personal and philosophical Sonnets and poems; where did they come from? For whom were they intended? Who was their inspiration? I have heard it suggested amongst Stratfordians that the Sonnets are not personal to the author; such is the gap between their content and what we know of the actor, Shakespeare.

I think you must turn to books such as Charles Willis's book, if you are curious to explore the questions above. I certainly will.

Mark Rylance

(Distinguished Shakespearean actor and member of the Royal Shakespeare Company,  Artistic Director Shakespeare's Globe (1996-2006), Trustee of The Shakespearean Authorship Trust)

Charles Willis is a latter-day detective and pursuer of historical truth. His fascinating and highly articulate insights and efforts to get to the bottom of the Puttenham mystery shed new light on the whole Shakespeare controversy. He has unraveled many new questions and answers and this is a unique contribution.

Sir William Ripley

 (Historian and author) 

Charles Willis’s work on George Puttenham is of great importance because his Arte of English Poesie (1589) laid the foundation for all Elizabethan and Jacobean poetry. Willis has demonstrated for the first time, by revealing Puttenham’s contribution, that the enigmatic Shakespeare Sonnets and other poems can be seen in a new light. Stratfordian scholarship has failed to uncover Puttenham’s key role.

Francis Carr

(Director of the Shakespeare Authorship Information Center,

author of Who Wrote Don Quixote)

An excellent read for anyone intrigued by the Shakespeare authorship question.

Dr. Mary Hollingsworth

 (Author of The Cardinal’s Hat, the life of Cardinal Ippolito II d’Este)

Charles Willis’s books on George Puttenham provide readers a well-illustrated storehouse of information about this important Elizabethan author, based on heretofore unstudied primary sources. From original family manuscripts, Willis opens up substantial new vistas concerning Puttenham’s biography, his relations with the Paulet and Windsor families, and the place of his writings in the social history of the time.

Professor Stephen W. May

(Author of Elizabethan Courtier Poets)

Charles Willis’s studies of George Puttenham are an important contribution to our knowledge of that fascinating period when the English language as we know it was being created.

Elizabeth Imlay

(Editor of the De Vere Society Newsletter)

My own interest in Charles Willis’s research into our family history is more personal in nature.  In spite of a 350 year difference, the events that moulded the lives of the writer George Puttenham and the publisher George Palmer Putnam, are striking. My great-uncle George Putnam was the promotional genius behind G.P. Putnam & Sons Publishing. His involvement with Charles Lindbergh, Amelia Earhart, who he later married, and the Roosevelts, bear an amazing resemblance to the events of 400 years ago. Amelia and George Putnam in duty to their country and friendship to the Roosevelts, were involved in the same political intrigue and spy missions as our cousin was 400 years ago. Charles Willis’s research reads a little like the documentation from the Freedom of Information Act. This ‘who done it?’ stuff parallels the disappearance of Amelia Earhart, as the 16^th century writer George Puttenham disappeared, and if you learn to read between the lines of the spin-doctors and government propaganda machines, the real truth begins to take shape. George Puttenham’s confidant Lord Burghley was the present day equivalent of J.Edgar Hoover, who may have played a large role in the Amelia Earhart cover-up and George Putnam’s guilt by association. These events seem to bear a striking resemblance to the intrigue surrounding George Puttenham in the 16^th century.

Hats off to Charles Willis for staying the course to get to the bottom of this mystery, and I personally thank him for keeping the flame alive.

Haven Putnam

(Direct ancestor of George Puttenham)

George Puttenham and the Authorship of Shakespeare’s Sonnets (2005)

The Sonnets have baffled legions of scholars for centuries. For my money, one thing that’s virtually certain about these remarkable and often inscrutable poems is the absence of any plausible connection with the life of the supposed author, the man from Stratford-upon-Avon. For Shakespeare-lovers who believe someone else wrote the Sonnets, Charles Willis’s theory about George Puttenham is perhaps the most interesting and original take on the Sonnets I’ve come across, what’s more, it could even be true.

Matthew Cossoletto

(President of the Shakespeare Oxford Society, 2006)

Puttenham had the legal background which is so clearly exhibited in the Sonnets. He had a need to conceal his name as his ex-wife was pursuing him for debt; he saw (the Earl of) Oxford as a rival poet who would surpass him, he himself suffered shame and dishonor; some parallels are truly astonishing.

Kevin Gilvary

 (Editor of the De Vere Society Newsletter)

Shakespeare and George Puttenham’s

The Arte of English Poesie (2003)

There is wonderful material here, I found it fascinating. It offers a provocative solution to an important question.

Professor John Spiers

 (University of Glamorgan)

Describes a life, exciting even by Elizabethan standards: the hero squandered a fortune and died penniless. This research is very important as it begins to fill the rather empty canvas of aristocratic and court literary circles. If you are unfamiliar with Willis’s study of Puttenham’s life and main works, you are advised to consult it at the earliest opportunity.

Kevin Gilvary

(Editor of the De Vere Society Newsletter)

This book examines the mysterious life of George Puttenham, described by Elizabeth I’s godson, Sir John Harington, as ‘that unknown godfather and a subtle lawyer’.

David Rymill

(Editor of the Hampshire Archives Trust Newsletter)

George Puttenham’s name has been languishing in obscurity and misunderstanding for 400 years, it’s about time we gave him the credit he deserves. Not only was he one of the most original writers in the 16^th century, but he was an important influence on Shakespeare and Ben Jonson.

Robert Putnam

 (Ancestor of George Puttenham and editor of the Bulletin of the American Friends of Puttenham)  

 

This book brings into the public arena original unpublished archive material relating to the fascinating subject of the Shakespeare authorship enigma, as well as some stunning works of that era. An absolute must for anyone who has ever read a work by Shakespeare or who has studied English literature at school.

Customer review: Amazon.com

________________________________________________________________________

Sir Derek Jacobi and the Shakespeare Authorship Question, 2006

Sir Derek Jacobi is one of Britain’s most notable Shakespearean actors. He joined the Royal Shakespeare Company in 1982 and made his debut as director in 1988 with his production of Hamlet for the Renaissance Theatre Company. He played the Emperor Claudius in the  acclaimed 1970’s BBC drama I, Claudius,  and has appeared in numerous Shakespeare adaptions on stage and film, including Othello with Laurence Olivier, and Henry V with Kenneth Brannagh, and has performed Hamlet nearly four hundred times professionally.

The following are examples of comments which Sir Derek sent to the Shakespeare Authorship Conference in 2006:

‘Like a growing number of interested parties, I have had grave doubts for some time now of the validity of (William Shakespeare) the Stratford man’s claim to have written some of the greatest literature the world has produced. Indeed, I must admit that it still seems incredible to me that one mind could possible have encompassed such a monumental feat’

‘Is there indeed any incontrovertible, unequivocal evidence that ‘Stratford Will’ was even an actor? But of course with doubt comes not discussion but accusation. We are labeled eccentrics and loonies’

‘All these years of academic dedication lavished on ‘the wrong man’ must be defended at all costs, it seems. Reputations tremble, an industry turns pale, and the weapons of ridicule and abuse are leveled and fired. But at least the battle lines have been drawn, and myself, who cannot reconcile the illiteracy of Shakespeare’s offspring, alongside his own deep and adept knowledge of medicine, art, music, geography, law and his almost nonchalant use of metaphor from, for example, sporting activities that were exclusively the pursuit of the aristocracy, not to mention his mastery of history, languages and the intricacies of survival at court. The only evidence of Shakespeare’s literary life was produced after he died, and is open to dispute. Nothing, while alive, apart from some shaky signatures, puts a pen in his hand’

‘Legend, hearsay and myth have created this writer’

‘I have taken part in thirty-one plays so far, and I can imagine, I can feel someone behind the words, whose education and life experiences, whose knowledge of all strata of society, whose relationships and temperament simple do not fit (Shakespeare) the grain-hoarder, the money-lender and the entrepreneur’

‘It’s not enough to say ‘Oh, but the works of Shakespeare survive, whoever wrote them, it doesn’t therefore matter’. Yes it does! The disclosure of the real author would enhance not only the historical significance, but also the contemporary excitement of these treasures, for both actors and spectators, and it shouldn’t be regarded as potential professional suicide, heresy or an actor’s silliness, to come out and say so’

‘The restrictive orthodox analysis must be open to seriously considered debate. There must be a challenge to the selective evidence of the scholars, based on their desire to justify ‘their man’, rather than assess objective criteria. Too much is conjecture, guesswork, allegory and assumption, what one writer has called ‘a well-documented blank’

‘Take a lesson from we actors who constantly are told that ‘less is more’. Our lifeblood as performers is constantly questioning, research, analysis, intellectual and emotional honesty; the play’s the thing, not the player. Without the dramatist, we have no opportunity to strut whatever stuff we possess, and in this particular case, above all, if we could find the true author of these exquisite dramas, the rewards for both actor and audience would be immense. A spotlight would be thrown on hitherto unfathomable passages, and centuries of delight would be highlighted by the knowledge of the real events, situations and characters that guided and informed the author’s hand. Let there be vigorous and legitimate debate’         

Three Essays

1 Why the ‘Protestant’ poem Venus and Adonis, ‘William Shakespeare’s’ first publication in 1593, could not have been written by William Shakspere.

2 The Throckmorton plot and George Puttenham’s links to Sir Francis Walsingham   

3 The 16^th Earl of Oxford, Lord William Windsor and George Puttenham

________________________________________________________________________

1 Why the ‘Protestant’ poem Venus and Adonis, ‘William Shakespeare’s’ first publication in 1593, could not have been written by William Shakspere.

By

Charles Murray Willis

copyright 2006

The importance and significance of the political and religious events in England between 1580 and 1586 which involved powerful Catholic families in their attempt to overthrow Queen Elizabeth’s government, has been overlooked by historians and those concerned with the Shakespeare authorship question. Historical facts indicate that the family of William Shakspere from Stratford was not only strongly supportive of the old Catholic order and religion, but also closely linked to the family of Edward Arden, via his mother Mary Arden, who was a cousin of the Arden family. Edward Arden, his son-in-law John Somerville and their cousin Francis Throckmorton were leading members of the Catholic ‘Throckmorton plot’ in 1583, to overthrow Queen Elizabeth, which resulted in their arrest and subsequent sentences to death.

Michael Wood’s book In Search of Shakespeare (2003) gives details of this Catholic plot in 1583 which involved the Arden, Somerville and Throckmorton families who all lived in the Stratford area in Warwickshire. William Shakspere’s mother Mary Arden’s father Robert Arden (d. 1556) was a cousin of Edward Arden, who was married to Mary (Throckmorton), first cousin of Francis Throckmorton who was the leader of the Catholic conspiracy in 1583.

Between 1580-83 there are historical indications that the Catholic Shakspere family would have been sympathetic to the Jesuit mission and cause when leading Jesuits had close connections and supporters in the Stratford region. In 1580 the Jesuit mission’s leaders Edmund Campion and Robert Persons were joined and given shelter by Francis and Thomas Throckmorton, and Robert Persons was given shelter by Edward Arden. Other Jesuits in the Stratford area were Thomas Cottan and Robert Debdale, a relative of Shakspere’s mother.

In 1582 William Shakspere and his bride Anne Hathaway avoided being married in Stratford where there was a Protestant vicar, and were married in Temple Grafton where the marriage service was conducted by the well-known Catholic John Frith.

The Protestant Vautrollier and Field print-shop and its connections to Walsingham and Giordano Bruno

Letters written by Walsingham in 1583/4 mention the printer Thomas Vautrollier and it is almost certain that Vautrollier was assisting Walsingham in his propaganda drive against English Catholics. Vautrollier would have been assisted by his four sons, Simeon, Manasses, Thomas and James, the same time that Richard Field was an apprentice.

In 1583 one of Walsingham’s most important informers was the Italian Giordano Bruno who provided information concerning Throckmorton’s movements, which led to his arrest in November, the same time that Shakspere’s cousin Edward Arden was arrested.

In 1584 Vautrollier fled to Scotland to avoid imprisonment for unauthorized printing a work by Giordano Bruno. He set up a printing press in Edinburgh and then returned to London in 1586, and died in 1587. The print-shop was taken over by Richard Field who married his widow in 1589, in order to secure the business and keep it in the family. In the same year he printed Puttenham’s The Arte of English Poesie which was dedicated to Lord Burghley. 

In 1584 the seriousness of the political situation and danger to Elizabeth provoked Walsingham to devise a new pledge of loyalty to all her subjects. Vautrollier printed Lord  Burghley’s Execution of Justice in England. Lord Burghley and Walsingham would have had details of all those concerned with the  Throckmorton and Arden plots of 1583, because they had given orders for the arrests of the conspirators and those concerned. On the eve of Arden’s execution the government had felt the need to publish a propaganda justification of their treatment of such Catholic plots. Burghley completed his Execution of Justice in England which was printed by Richard Field and Thomas Vautrollier, who specialized in high quality pro-government Protestant publications. In 1588 Richard Field’s first publication since taking over the print-shop from Vautrollier (d. 1588) was another Protestant propaganda paper by Burghley The Copy of a Letter sent out of England to Don Bernadin Mendoza. The following year in 1589 Field printed Puttenham’s Arte of English Poesie dedicated to Burghley, and four years later in 1593 the first publication by ‘William Shakespeare’ the poem Venus and Adonis dedicated to the 20 year old Earl of Southampton.

As Southampton was aged 20, Burghley was his still his legal guardian until he became 21. The poem was intended to encourage Southampton to marry Burghley’s granddaughter Lady Elizabeth de Vere, daughter of the Earl of Oxford. As Southampton was under the legal age, Burghley would have been responsible for him and represented his interests, therefore the printer Richard Field would have needed Burghley’s authorization and permission  because the poem was dedicated to his ward-of-court.

In 1593 Burghley would still have been familiar with the details of the Throckmorton, Arden and Somerville plot in 1583, and the list of Catholic recusants which included William’s father John Shakspere, linked to the Arden family. The printer Richard Field would have known of the Throckmorton plot and the family of William Shakspere, because his family had been involved in legal disputes with the Shakspere family for more than twenty years.

Therefore it is inconceivable that in 1593 the first published work by ‘William Shakespeare’, the poem Venus and Adonis, could have had any connection with William Shakspere of Stratford. The poem was printed by the Protestant Richard Field, also from Stratford, but the print-shop which was still run by the Huguenot Vautrollier family. This print-shop had been publishing pro-government Protestant works since the 1580’s and their most important and patron and customer was the most powerful man in England, the Lord Treasurer Lord Burghley.

2 The Throckmorton plot and George Puttenham links to Sir Fancis Walsingham  

By

Charles Murray Willis

copyright 2006

The writer and poet George Puttenham (1529-91?), author of the Arte of English Poesie (1589) had been closely involved with the Throckmorton family since before 1560 when his sister Margaret married the lawyer and Chief Justice of Chester Sir John Throckmorton. Since the early 1560’s Sir John Throckmorton had been Puttenham’s financial adviser and joint-owner of assets, since Puttenham’s marriage in 1560 to the widow Lady Elizabeth Windsor. Puttenham’s brother-in-law Throckmorton was well-known for his Catholic views and for this reason he had powerful enemies, headed by Queen Elizabeth’s favorite the Earl of Leicester. In 1579 Throckmorton was sequestered from his position as Chief Justice and fined 1000 pounds, and died within a few months of this family dishonor. To avenge their father’s dishonor in 1580, members of the Throckmorton family including his sons Francis and Thomas Throckmorton helped hide the leaders of the Jesuit mission and joined their cause. Later in 1580, they escaped to the continent where they were in close touch with other exiled  English Catholics who were plotting to replace Elizabeth with Mary, Queen of Scots.

In April 1583 Francis Throckmorton returned to England where he contacted other Catholic conspirators, but at the same time he was watched by Sir Francis Walsingham’s spies for six months before being arrested in October and charged with treason. At the same time in October, John Somerville was arrested and thrown in the Tower with Francis Throckmorton, but it is clear that Walsingham wanted to arrest all those who linked to the family of Francis Throckmorton, especially Edward Arden who was married to the daughter of Robert Throckmorton.                                                      

Was Puttenham working as a government informer for Walsingham? 

It is likely that George Puttenham was assisting Secretary of State Sir Francis Walsingham in his campaign to promote the Protestant cause and control the Catholic threat. The attributed-to Puttenham government propaganda treatise Civil and Uncivil Life (1579) was dedicated to Walsingham, and since 1580 Puttenham would have known of his nephew Francis Throckmorton’s movements in France. In 1583 it is almost certain that Puttenham would have known of Throckmorton’s Catholic plot because in June he made over all his property and legal interests which he shared with Throckmorton, to the Queen, in exchange for having all his debts paid off. Four months later in October, Throckmorton was arrested, and in 1584 was executed.

In 1583 one of Walsingham’s most important informers was the Italian Giordano Bruno who provided information concerning Throckmorton’s movements, which led to his arrest in November, the same time that Shakspere’s cousin Edward Arden was arrested.

3 The 16^th Earl of Oxford, Lord William Windsor and George Puttenham

by

Charles Murray Willis

copyright 2006

Establishing the connection between George Puttenham and the 16^th and 17^th Earls of Oxford is important as this would more add credibility to the claim that Puttenham wrote the Sonnets to Edward de Vere (17^th Earl of Oxford) between 1576-81, which is the subject of my second book George Puttenham and the Authorship of Shakespeare’s Sonnets (2005). The connection between the Puttenham and Oxford families was via the Windsor family, and when this link is examined the relationship between these three families becomes clearer. 

In 1560 the writer and poet George Puttenham (1529-91?) married the wealthy widow Lady Elizabeth Windsor in 1560, when she was already 1500 pounds in debt from her first husband Richard Paulet, and 5000 pounds in debt from her second husband Lord William Windsor.

Lady Windsor’s second husband Lord William Windsor (ca 1510-58) had been a senior courtier for the Catholic Queen Mary I during her reign (1553-58), and their son Philip (named after Philip of Spain), was a godson to Queen Mary’s husband King Philip II of Spain. Lord Windsor’s son Edward from an earlier marriage, had married Katherine de Vere in ca. 1553, eldest child of the 16^th Earl of Oxford, head of one of the oldest and wealthiest families in England.

The ambitious lawyer and poet George Puttenham was Lord William Windsor’s second cousin, and the younger brother of the land-owning and Catholic, Richard  Puttenham, and therefore he needed to marry into a wealthy family to help finance his future diplomatic career. The marriage to the 40 year old widow Lady Windsor in 1560 was recommended by Puttenham’s brother-in-law, the Catholic Sir John Throckmorton, also a lawyer, and Chief Justice of Chester since 1558. Throckmorton’s bother was Sir Nicholas Throckmorton who in 1560 was Queen Elizabeth’s ambassador in France.

Puttenham’s marriage to Lady Windsor would strengthen his family ties with the Windsor family, as his grandfather Sir George Puttenham had been married to the sister of the 1^st Lord (Andrew) Windsor. His son William Windsor had died in 1558 leaving numerous children and debts, but he still had valuable property in several counties. Unless his widow Lady Windsor re-married in 1559 or 1560, she would be unable to claim much of her ex-husband’s inheritance, which would go to his eldest son Edward Windsor.

A marriage of ‘convenience’ to George Puttenham was advised by Sir John Throckmorton, who could also advise her on how to secure the Windsor inheritance.

In 1558 much of this Windsor inheritance had already passed to Lord William Windsor’s brother-in-law the 16^th Earl of Oxford, who took over all his goods. There is a 30 page inventory of his goods and chattels in the Hampshire Public Record Office (see Herriard collection HRO 44/M69/F2/14/1).

‘All (Lord William Windsor’s) his goods and chattels, petitions, indentures, wards, leases and extensions immediately after his death, by the Earl of Oxford for 1500 pounds, forfeited unto him . . . all the goods and chattels as the said George (Puttenham) came unto by the said lady (Lady Windsor), he bought them of the said Earl of Oxford and Edward Lord Windsor his son (in-law)’

(HRO 44/M69/F2/14/1)

 This would indicate that Lord Windsor still owed money or had large debts to the 16^th Earl of Oxford when he died in 1558.

When Puttenham married Lord Windsor’s widow in 1560 he bought back much of Lord Windsor’s goods from the Earl of Oxford (see Herriard 44/M69/F2/14/1). In 1559 the widow Lady Windsor was ‘being offered some wrong and trouble by Edward, late Lord Windsor’s son . . . for her jointure of his father’s inheritance, she being a lone woman and unable to fend in these causes’

In 1560, Puttenham married Lady Windsor and negotiated a legal settlement with the Earl of Oxford and his son-in-law Lord Edward Windsor protecting her inheritance, which otherwise would have gone to her ex-husband Lord William Windsor’s son Lord Edward Windsor (from Lord Windsor’s former marriage to Margaret Sambourne). In spite of this initial legal settlement between Lord Edward Windsor and Puttenham, legal disputes continued between Edward Windsor and Puttenham for the next 15 years until the death of Edward Windsor in Venice in 1575.

In 1560 it is more likely that the Protestant-orientated and theatre-loving 16^th Earl of Oxford was closer in sympathies and interests to the poet George Puttenham, than his son-in-law the Catholic Edward Windsor. In 1560 Oxford allowed Puttenham to buy back Lord William Windsor’s goods and property, most likely at a favorable rate, rather than allowing them to remain with his son Edward Windsor.

 Puttenham would have known the Earl of Oxford’s second wife Margery Golding, who he married in 1550, a marriage that Edward Windsor and his wife Katherine de Vere (Oxford’s daughter from his first marriage), would have disapproved of. Between 1563-4 they claimed it was unlawful, and that the two children Edward de Vere (born in 1550), and Mary de Vere, were illegitimate. In Puttenham’s book the Arte of English Poesie (1589) he refers to the Earl of Oxford’s wife’s brother, the author and scholar Arthur Golding in complimentary terms, indicating a close association. In 1560 it is likely that the Earl of Oxford would have approved Puttenham’s marriage to Lady Windsor, because Puttenham would then have been in a stronger family and financial position to protect his 10 year old son Edward de Vere, if the Earl died before his son became legally independent at the age of 21. It is likely that in 1560 the 16^th Earl would have known of the future problems concerning his inheritance, and the ambitions and intentions of his Catholic daughter Katherine and her husband Lord Edward Windsor, and that they would challenge Edward de Vere’s inheritance if he died, therefore Puttenham would have been a useful ally.

In 1562, the Earl unexpectedly died and within the next two years, between 1563-64, Lord Edward Windsor sued to have the issue of the 16^th Earl’s second marriage, his two children Edward and Mary de Vere, declared illegitimate, in order that his wife Katherine (de Vere) could claim the Earl’s inheritance. The 16^th Earl’s brother-in-law, the scholar Arthur Golding responded to the suit, most likely on William Cecil’s (Lord Burghley) instructions. The 13 year old Edward de Vere was now ‘under the ward, tutelage and care of’ Queen Elizabeth’, and in 1564 he was a Ward of court residing at the household of the Protestant Sir William Cecil, Queen Elizabeth’s chief Secretary of State. In 1564 it is likely that the ambitious William Cecil already had plans for the 14 year old Edward de Vere to marry one of his daughters. Lord Edward Windsor’s inheritance claim in 1564 was not well received by the Queen and Sir William Cecil and rejected and even though Edward Windsor entertained the Queen at his estate at Bradenham in 1566, he later went into exile, and lived in Italy until his death in 1575.

In 1563-64 Puttenham needed to gain royal favor and ally himself with Cecil’s Protestant government, and he would have been in a good position to disapprove and oppose his cousin Edward Windsor’s claims, and ally himself with the Protestant-educated Edward de Vere and his guardian Sir William Cecil. Between 1560-64 powerful Catholic families were not popular with the Protestant government. In 1560 Lord Edward Windsor’s younger brothers Edmund and Thomas tried forcibly to take over Ankerwick manor, the home of Sir Thomas Smith, one of the senior Secretaries of State, who had been tutoring the young Edward de Vere. During the 1560’s documents indicate Puttenham’s legal disputes with the Edward and Edmund Windsor. During the mid- 1560’s Puttenham was in favor with Queen Elizabeth and Cecil, most likely because he was supporting Protestant government policies, and it is likely he was assisting with the  education of Edward de Vere, Cecil’s ward of court, because of his past association with the boy’s father.

 During the 1560’s Puttenham needed to ally himself and gain favor with Queen Elizabeth and Sir William Cecil for two reasons. Firstly because his family were wealthy Catholics and his elder brother Richard had been exiled in 1561 on a rape charge. Secondly his wife Lady Windsor’s family from her first marriage to Richard Paulet, were opposed to her third marriage to Puttenham, because being her husband he could now control and prevent their inheritance. Between 1560-70 Puttenham was involved in numerous legal disputes with his wife’s family the Paulets, especially her son John Paulet and her cousin Lord Thomas Paulet, who was the grandson of the Marquis of Winchester,  Queen Elizabeth’s Lord Treasurer. However between 1562-69, inspite of these and other financial difficulties there are indications that Puttenham was receiving support from the royal household, and the most likely person was Secretary of State Sir William Cecil (Lord Burghley). Cecil was hoping that his ward-of-court Edward de Vere would agree to marry one of his daughters, as de Vere was the wealthiest and most eligible bachelor in England. It would seem that in 1570, the 20 year old de Vere was willing to please his guardian, as in 1570, he agreed to marry fourteen year old Anne Cecil, and in 1571, when she became fifteen they were married.

In Puttenham’s Arte of English Poesie (1589) he refers to Edward de Vere in complimentary terms quoting poetry that he had written in his youth between 1565-71, and it is likely that Puttenham would have been advising and teaching the young man between this period. It is also likely that Puttenham would have advised him to keep in favor with his guardian William Cecil and agree to marry his daughter, and at the same time Puttenham would have gained favor with Cecil for helping to persuade the young man.

In my book George Puttenham and the Authorshiip of Shakespeare’s Sonnets, I proposed that Puttenham may have addressed the Sonnets to Edward de Vere between 1576-81 in order to try and persuade him to return to his wife Anne (Cecil). If Puttenham had been strongly instrumental in persuading Edward de Vere to agree to marry Anne, he would have had the same feelings of disappointment, failure and guilt that are expressed by the writer (Puttenham) of the Sonnets when he is addressing the young nobleman or ‘fair youth’. (Oxford). There are a number of lines and verses in the Sonnets where the poet is admitting he is also to blame for the young man’s unfortunate position, and that he was an ‘accessory’ in his fall from grace.

All men make faults, and even I in this . . . that I, an accessory needs must be’

(Sonnet 35)

Between 1560-76 Puttenham was continuously in trouble with the legal and church authorities, firstly because his family were influential Catholics, and secondly because  his wife’s family, the Paulets wanted him to divorce his wife Lady Windsor, so they could obtain their inheritance. Therefore Puttenham needed royal favor and the support of Secretary of State Sir William Cecil, and there are indications between 1576-88 that he  was receiving the support and backing of Cecil. If this was the case Puttenham was in a position to stay in favor with Cecil if he supported his aims and ambitions. Between 1576-1609 there is no other case of a high-ranking young nobleman such as the Earl of Oxford disgracing himself, which fits the young man or ‘fair youth’ of the Sonnets. Puttenham was in a unique position to fulfil his role as supporter of Cecil, and try and persuade Oxford to return to his wife, and he had the poetic ability that he so clearly demonstrated in the Sonnets.

_______________________________________________________________________

 Did George Puttenham write Shake-Speare’s Sonnets and the poems Venus and Adonis and the Rape of Lucrece? 

copyright 2006

by Charles Murray Willis

Sonnets 87 and 129 are considered to be two of Shakespeare’s most impressive sonnets, and they are both closely linked with the literary work of the mysterious writer and critic George Puttenham (1529-91?), author of the Arte of English Poesie (1589). The language displayed in these two sonnets is so closely connected to Puttenham’s literary work that one can surmise that Puttenham also wrote these two sonnets and other sonnets that relate to these two sonnets (eg. Sonnets 34, 35, 40-45, 94, 133). Otherwise why should a poet or literary genius like William Shakspere, who is traditionally thought to have written the Sonnets, have found it necessary to take Puttenham’s exact words and ideas? If Puttenham wrote these key sonnets there is every reason to believe that he wrote all the  154 sonnets.

Puttenham’s The Arte of English Poesie which was an extensive manual on how to write good poetry, appeared in 1589, when Shakspere was aged 25, but there is no historical evidence that Puttenham’s manuscript ever circulated before publication (1589), and no indication that Puttenham ever knew Shakspere from Stratford. Shakspere could have chosen from a wide range of instructional books on how to write poetry which were  available to any aspiring poet between 1550-1600. Popular poetry manuals which appeared between 1575-1600, were for example, George Gascoigne’s Notes of Instruction concerning the Making of Verse (1575), William Webbe’s Discourse of English Poetrie (1586) and Sir Philip Sidney’s Defense of Poetry (1582, published 1595). Why the writer of the Sonnets took so much material and seem to obsessed with  Puttenham’s book has never been explained.

Sonnet 129

Sonnet 129 taken from the first publication Shake-Speares Sonnets (1609) reads as follows:

Th’expense of Spirit in a waste of shame                     1

Is lust in action, and till action, lust

Is perjured, murdrous, bloody, full of blame,

Savage, extreme, rude, cruel, not to trust,

Enjoyed no sooner but despised straight,                      5

Past reason hunted, and no sooner had

Past reason hated as a swallowed bait,

On purpose laid to make the taker mad.

Made in pursuit and in possession so,

Had, having, and in quest, to have extreme,                 10

A bliss in proof and proved a very woe,

Before a joy proposed, behind a dream,

All this the world well knows yet none knows well,

To shun the heaven that leads men to this hell

In the Arte of English Poesie Puttenham quotes lines taken from the sonnets of Thomas Wyatt and the Earl of Surrey, and also includes a sonnet which is his version of a sonnet originally by Lord Vaux, which was included in Tottel’s Miscellany (Songs and Sonnets) of 1557.

Puttenham writes:

‘And some verses made all of bisyllables (disyllables, ie. words of two syllables), and others of trisyllables (three syllables), and others of polysyllables (words made up of more than three syllables), equally increasing and diverse quantities, and sundry situations, as in this of our own, made to daunt the insolence of a beautiful woman’.

Sonnet 129 and sonnets 127-54 which relate to this theme are also:

‘made to daunt the insolence of a beautiful woman’.

In Sonnets 127-55 Shakespeare seems to be addressing his mistress, who is also a ‘beautiful woman’.

(Sonnet 127)

In the old age black was not counted fair

Or if it were it bore not beauty’s name

But now is black beauty’s successive heir

And beauty slandered with a bastard shame

For since each hand hath put on nature’s power

Fairing the foul with art’s false borrowed face

Sweet beauty hath no name, no holy bower

But is profaned, if not lives in disgrace

Therefore my mistress’ eyes are raven black

Her eyes so suited, and they mourners seem

As such who, not born fair, no beauty lack,

Slandering creation with a false esteem

Yet so they mourn, becoming of their woe

That every tongue says beauty should look so

In his Partheniades poems Puttenham addresses and describes Queen Elizabeth, describing her eyes and mouth in more flattering terms.

Her eyes, God wot, what stuff they are

I durst be sworn each is a star

As clear and bright as to guide

The pilot in his winter tide . . .

A golden tongue in mouth of amber

That oft is hard, but none it seeth

Without a guard of ivory teeth

(lines 137-46)

Puttenham quotes the following sonnet (based on Vaux’s) in the Arte of English Poesie:

‘Brittle beauty, blossom daily fading,                      1

Morn, noon, and eve in age, and eke in eld           

Dangerous, disdainful, pleasantly persuading,

Easy to gripe but cumbrous to weld

For slender bottom hard and heavy lading,              5

Gay for a while, but little while durable,

Suspicious, incertain, irrevocable,                              

O since thou art by trial, not to trust

Wisdom it is, and it is also just

To sound the stem before the tree be felled             10

That is, since death will drive us all to dust

To leave thy love, ere that we be compelled.

‘These lines by Puttenham provided Shakespeare with a complete phrase for Sonnet 129. Puttenham’s ‘not to trust’, which stands in a key position at the end of his line 8, which is repeated by Shakespeare in a similarly important position at the end of ‘his’ line 4,

‘Savage, extreme, rude, cruel, not to trust’