Reason 98 Why the Earl of Oxford was "Shakespeare" – He's the Only Playwright on the Meres List in 1598 Whose Plays are all "Lost"
"We have at least some dramatic material from all twenty-nine authors, except the politician Ferrers and the courtier De Vere." – MacDonald P. Jackson, Determining the Shakespeare Canon, 2014, p. 119
In the above excerpt from his new book to be published on August 19 this year, Professor Jackson of New Zealand refers to the English dramatists listed by Francis Meres in Palladis Tamia (1598) as best for tragedy or comedy or both. And he points out that for only two of them, George Ferrers and Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford, no plays or even records of their plays are extant — despite the statement in The Arte of English Poesie, published less than a decade earlier in 1589:
"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."
Although Meres also included Edward Ferris (whose identity has been uncertain), he actually meant Ferrers, citing him for the poetry collection Mirror for Magistrates; but Ferrers was not a playwright, which leaves Oxford as the one and only bonafide dramatist on the Meres list whose plays have vanished — as mentioned by the seventeenth-century antiquary Anthony Wood in Fasti Oxonienses (1692), Vol. 1, p. 727:
"This most noble Earl of Oxon was … an excellent poet and comedian, as several matters of his composition, which were made public, did show – which, I presume, are now lost and worn out."
This is the more famous section of the Meres book, announcing that "Shakespeare" was author of a dozen known plays
The contemporary record clearly states that Oxford was highly regarded for writing some of the most popular stage works of his time, which would have included the 1570s and 1580s, so his standing as the sole writer for the English stage on the Meres list without any surviving play (or even any record of having written one) is a glaring anomaly that cries out for explanation. The answer from here, of course, is that this is just what to expect if all his "comedies and interludes" were originally anonymous, or credited to others, and later revised for publication under the "Shakespeare" name. This would explain why all his stage works were "lost" or unrecorded and how the author of Sonnet 81 could predict that "I, once gone, to all the world must die."
John Thomas Looney, who identified Oxford as the Bard in 1920, wrote in Shakespeare Pictorial of November 1935:
"In Edward de Vere we have a dramatist, recognized by all contemporary authorities as belonging to the first rank, yet the whole of his dramas are missing. 'The lost plays of the Earl of Oxford' had become an outstanding reality of dramatic history many a year before the Shakespeare problem had even been thought of.
"De Vere is the only dramatist in the long list compiled in 1598 by Francis Meres of whose work no trace has been found. On the other hand, we have in the 'Shakespeare' plays a set of dramas of the highest class attributed to a man [William Shaksper of Stratford-upon-Avon] whose personal records have been found by modern historical research to be in direct conflict with all the outstanding and indisputable implications of such authorship. We have therefore an ever-growing mass of evidence that he was but a cover for some unnamed dramatist.
John Thomas Looney 1870-1944
"Briefly, then, we have in Edward de Vere the only first-class dramatist the whole of whose plays are missing, and in the Shakespeare plays the only complete set of first-class dramas the author of which, on the strength of probabilities amounting to a practical certainty, is also supposed to be missing. These facts alone, each in its own way so amazingly strange and wholly unique, being contemporary and complementary, would justify, without further proof, a very strong belief that the Shakespeare plays are 'the lost plays of the Earl of Oxford.'"
On the premise that Oxford wrote the "Shakespeare" works, the plays cited by Meres represent mature versions of earlier texts dating as far back as the 1570s or even earlier, when they were recorded as performed at Court under different titles. In those decades Oxford's plays would have been anonymous.
Meres listed these individuals as Best for Tragedy: "The Lorde Buckhurst, Doctor Leg of Cambridge, Doctor Edes of Oxford, Master Edward Ferris, the author of the Mirror for Magistrates, Marlow, Peele, Watson, Kid, Shakespeare, Drayton, Chapman, Decker, and Beniamin Iohnson."
He listed these as Best for Comedy: "Edward, Earle of Oxforde, Doctor Gager of Oxforde, Master Rowley, once a rare scholler of learned Pembrooke Hall in Cambridge, Maister Edwardes, one of Her Maiesties Chappell, eloquent and wittie Iohn Lilly, Lodge, Gascoyne, Greene, Shakespeare, Thomas Nash, Thomas Heywood, Anthony Mundye, our best plotter, Chapman, Porter, Wilson, Hathway, and Henry Chettle."
The title page of Minerva Britannia of 1612 by Henry Peacham — a dramatic visualization of a writer for the stage who remains invisible behind the curtain…
Only Shakespeare and Chapman are included in both lists. Oxford had been personally connected to many of them; for example: John Lyly and Anthony Munday were his secretaries who dedicated works to him, as did Thomas Watson and Robert Greene; he and Richard Edwards were connected through the Children of the Chapel and as fellow poets; George Gascoigne was an acquaintance from earliest years; George Peele and Thomas Lodge, among others on the list, were in his circle of writers during the wartime years of the 1580s; Chapman wrote about meeting him in Europe – and so on.
Following is the entire list, with my inclusion of one stage work for each individual, except for the non-playwright Ferrers and Oxford, the only dramatist on the list with no known play:
THOMAS SACKVILLE, LORD BUCKHURST (1536-1608) – Gorboduc (1561) with Norton
THOMAS LEGGE (1535-1607) – Richard the 3, The Destruction of Jerusalem (both plays named by Meres)
RICHARD EDES (1554-1604) – a play of Julius Caesar, no longer extant; and manuscript fragments of a court entertainment in 1592
GEORGE FERRERS (1500-1579) – (Mistakenly called Master Edward Ferris by Meres) – he may or may not have written plays for court; known for his contributions to the famous collection of poems Mirror for Magistrates, which Meres cites by name
CHRISTOPHER MARLOWE (1564-1593) – Tamburlaine the Great, Part 1 (1587)
GEORGE PEELE (1556-1596) – The Arraignment of Paris (performed for the Queen in 1581; printed in 1584)
THOMAS WATSON (c. 1556-1592) – a Latin version of Antigone by Sophocles (pub. 1581); no original play extant
THOMAS KYD (1558-1594) – credited, on uncertain grounds, with The Spanish Tragedy (conjectured writing in 1584-1589)
WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE – Six tragedies named by Meres
MICHAEL DRAYTON (1563-1631) – Sir John Oldcastle (1599), with Richard Hathway
GEORGE CHAPMAN (c. 1559 – 1634) – Bussy D'Ambois (1603-07)
THOMAS DEKKER (c. 1572 – 1632) – nearly twenty plays published during his lifetime; worked with many other writers, for Henslowe, from 1598 – Lust's Dominion, or The Spanish Moor's Tragedy, 1600, with Day, Marston, and Haughton
BEN JONSON (1572-1637) – (spelled Benjamin Johnson by Meres) – The Case is Altered, a comedy, possibly the earliest play written, in 1597; but no known tragedies until after the citation by Meres in 1598 (such as Sejanus, 1603)
EDWARD DE VERE, LORD OXFORD (1550-1604) – All his plays said to be "lost"
WILLIAM GAGER OF OXFORD – (known for Latin plays) – Rivales, a comedy (1583)
RALPH ROWLEY (d. 1604?) – "Once a rare scholar of learned Pembroke Hall in Cambridge" – but likely Meres may have been confused about the identity of this man, of whose writings nothing appears to be known; the only Rowley at Pembroke Hall during the period was Ralph Rowley, afterward Rector of Chelmsford
RICHARD EDWARDS (1525-1566) – "One of Her Majesty's Chapel" – Damon and Pithias, performed in 1564 for the Queen; Palamon and Arcite, performed for Elizabeth at Oxford in 1566
JOHN LYLY (1554-1606) – "eloquent and witty John Lyly" – Endimion: The Man in the Moon (1580s; printed in 1591)
THOMAS LODGE (c. 1558-1625) – A Looking Glass for London and England (1590, pub. 1594), with Robert Greene
GEORGE GASCOIGNE c. 1535-1577) – Supposes, a prose comedy based on Ariosto's Suppositi, performed in 1566 at Gray's Inn.
ROBERT GREENE (1558-1592) – Friar Bacon and Friar Bungay (1588-92)
WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE – Six comedies named by Meres
THOMAS NASHE (1567-c. 1601) – Summers Last Will and Testament (circa 1592)
THOMAS HEYWOOD (Early 1570s-1641) – Edward IV (printed 1600)
ANTHONY MUNDAY (1560? – 1633) – "our best plotter" – The Downfall of Robert Earl of Huntington, on the Robin Hood legend (1598)
GEORGE CHAPMAN (c. 1559-1634) – The Blind Beggar of Alexandria (1596; pub. 1598)
HENRY PORTER (d. 1599) – The Two Angry Women of Abington (pub. 1599)
ROBERT WILSON (flourished 1572-1600) – The Three Ladies of London (pub. 1584)
RICHARD HATHWAYE (fl. 1597-1603) – Sir John Oldcastle (with Michael Drayton)
HENRY CHETTLE (c. 1564-c. 1606) – The Tragedy of Hoffmann (played 1602; pub. 1631)
Tags: anthony wood, authorship, earl of oxford, edward de vere, francis meres, J. thomas looney, macdonald jackson, palladis tamia, shakesepeare's sonnets, shakespeare authorship, whittemore, who wrote shakespeare
The URI to TrackBack this entry is: https://hankwhittemore.com/2014/07/12/reason-98-why-the-earl-of-oxford-was-shakespeare-hes-the-only-playwright-on-the-meres-list-in-1598-whose-plays-are-all-lost/trackback/
On July 12, 2014 at 6:22 pm williamjosephray said:
Hank, thanks a lot for the clear description of Literature's major league record of no hits by Babe Ruth and 1,000 by the popcorn vendor. I don't think the Meres historical record is hopeless though, since the number equivalency intrinsic to his essay says what words can or will not. In paragraph 34 (nota bene, 2×17) Oxford is 1 and 'Shakespeare' 9, totally 10, which looks much like IO, a substitution device of the early Oxford poetry, which becomes extremely meaningful in Meres, when you realize IO in Italian is pronounced E'O.
On July 13, 2014 at 8:31 am Richard M. Waugaman, M.D. said:
I agree with Bill Ray that this is a powerful piece of evidence. Among the many relevant dots that the traditional theory fails to connect. Thank you for highlighting it.
On July 13, 2014 at 5:17 pm N-darnoc said:
Mr.Whittemore writes : "We have therefore an ever-growing mass of evidence that he [Shakespeare] was but a cover for some unnamed dramatist." – I agree! all Anti-Stratfordians will agree.. Otherwise there wouldn't exist Anti-Stratfordians….
But Whittemore's crucial double statement (1) and (2) based on "Francis Meres" seems illogical, at least to me, and hard to accept….
Whittemore (1): "Briefly, then, we have in Edward de Vere the only first-class dramatist the whole of whose plays are missing, [I fully agree! But… because he has not written any play , ever ….]
Whittemore (2): "and in the Shakespeare plays the only complete set of first-class dramas the author of which is also supposed to be missing. (on the strength of probabilities amounting to a practical certainty)" [ I can agree! But …because he [Shaxspere] was a masking figure of somebody else…but… Why Edward the Earl?]
And Mr.Whittemore concludes:
These facts alone," justify, without further proof, a very strong belief that the Shakespeare plays are 'the lost plays of the Earl of Oxford.'"
Do you mean : two negative facts extinguish each other and give a positive fact !! Is that your logic?
Did you ever think about Francis Meres' complete works? Who was this knowledgable man, speaking fluently Italian, French, Spanish , Latin , Greek? (only within a few years 1597-1602 but living til 1647? With late editions in the 1630ies)
May I propose to answer the twelve QUIZ questions NR 81 – 92 about Francis Meres. From my point of view, you invariably end up with Marlowe…unfortunately
http://www.der-wahre-shakespeare.com/quiz-english.html
Dear Sir, I don't have the time or interest to answer the numerous (rhetorical?) questions, but as far as explaining what the Droeshout Portrait, its neck-crease and the rest of it, is about, see my essay
http://www.wjray.net/shakespeare_papers/droeshout_portrait.htm
For those too occupied to read the essay, the neck crease is a long twisting V that leads to the EAR. Put the two devices together and you have V-EAR. I don't know what that could mean, I just work here. Catch the ear too: it is really a nose. The gent's forehead is just visible behind the curving hair.
So as far as the picture goes, you may have fallen off your pony, but it is better reasoning than the entire Shakespeare establishment.
On October 30, 2016 at 12:08 pm John said:
Hank, some Stratfordians say that Oxford was listed first for comedy because of his social rank. What do you say to that?
On October 30, 2016 at 8:31 pm hankwhitt said:
That could well be true. He is listed AMONG those he says are "best for comedy," and happens to be listed first — because of rank, perhaps. I don't think the point is significant. It's only significant to those who want to find some reason to disqualify Oxford as Shakespeare. I don't think the Meres listing in 1598 is in any order based on quality of writing. As the for the 1589 mention of Oxford in Arte of English Poesie, that might also be the case, but in that instance I believe the anonymous author of Arte was speaking of Courtier poets, in which case Oxford was in fact the best. Earlier, in 1586, William Webbe expressly said the "Earl of Oxford may challenge to himself the title of the most excellent among the rest." That sounds unambiguous. The Meres listing is different, however, and may well have to do with ranking — although in that listing Shakespeare is oddly placed — Oxford, Gager, Rowley, Edwards, followed by Lily, Lodge, Gascoigne, Greene, Shakespeare, Nash, Heywood," etc. That order, farther down the list, may be based on something, but I don't know what.
Anyway, my answer to the Stratfordians — if I were in a fighting mood, which I'm not — would be to advise them to do some positive work rather than waste time trying to smack down this or that silly straw man.