The Art of English Poesy: A Critical Edition Kindle Edition

Professors Whigham and Rebhorn have done a real service to the scholarly community with their superb new edition of this book. The scholarly apparatus is exemplary. Unlike previous editions, theirs comes with a comprehensive index, which facilitates our use of this important book.Their edition provides us with a much needed opportunity to re-examine the authorship of this important anonymous work of 1589. The Arte is widely recognized as possibly the most important Elizabethan book on literary theory. It is directed at courtiers, advising them not only on writing poetry, but on proper behavior and dress. Whigham and Rebhorn accept the conventional theory that George Puttenham (1529-1591) was the book's author. They note the book's central emphasis on the art of deception, yet they fail to consider the possibility that the book's author has successfully practiced this art on the readers of his book over the ensuing centuries. We do not in fact know with certainty who wrote this classic, and I suggest that the author was Edward de Vere (1550-1604), who deliberately disguised his authorship of this book by planting false clues that scholars have accepted at face value.Steven May, in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, concluded that Puttenham's claim to authorship is "not indisputable," but that it "trumps that of any other candidate." Whigham and Rebhorn perceive many traits in the author of the Arte that are consistent with de Vere's character. They note the centrality of deception and disguise in the book. De Vere's exile from court in the early 1580s is consistent with their observation that "Puttenham's authorial address... bespeaks his complex but abiding sense of disenfranchisement" (56). The sharp ambivalence with which they characterize the author's attitude toward court is consistent with de Vere's likely bitterness about his recent public humiliation by the Queen. Whigham and Rebhorn note "the author's own (partial and leaky) self-dissembling" (56)--their observation is consistent with an attribution to de Vere. What difference does it make, after all, who wrote the Arte? The same question is often asked of those who doubt the traditional theory of the authorship of Shakespeare's works. It would be of enormous interest if the same person wrote both the Arte and the works of Shakespeare. We are depriving ourselves of significant opportunities for scholarly advances in our understanding of the works of Shakespeare by clinging to crumbling if widely accepted evidence for the legendary author. This evidence erodes considerably if we take seriously the studies of North, Mullan and others on literary anonymity.