![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
UBC #21: Monstrous Adversary
UBC #21
Nelson, Alan H. Monstrous Adversary: The Life of Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2003.
(Thanks to![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
matociquala for the loan.)
Monstrous Adversary is the epitome of academic biography. It is exhaustively researched and consists almost entirely of primary source material: Oxford as revealed through his own words and those of his wife, father-in-law, daughters, friends, enemies, dependents, superiors ...
It is not a flattering picture.
Nelson effaces himself almost completely, although his loathing for his subject can't be entirely suppressed. In fact, the biography is a little frustrating to read because Nelson so utterly refuses to supply any kind of a narrative framework. He gives facts and contexts, but no interpretations. And there are a lot of places where I found myself asking, "But why on EARTH did Oxford do THAT?" If it's not in the primary material, Nelson doesn't attempt to provide answers, and even though that's frustrating, I admire him for it very much.
The seventeenth Earl of Oxford was a selfish, greedy, vain, profligate man, who lied and cheated and murdered his way through an utterly undistinguished life, routinely betraying his friends and dependents and treating those who tried to help him with the utmost ingratitude.
I'll take the glover's son from Stratford, thank you.
Nelson, Alan H. Monstrous Adversary: The Life of Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2003.
(Thanks to
matociquala for the loan.)Monstrous Adversary is the epitome of academic biography. It is exhaustively researched and consists almost entirely of primary source material: Oxford as revealed through his own words and those of his wife, father-in-law, daughters, friends, enemies, dependents, superiors ...
It is not a flattering picture.
Nelson effaces himself almost completely, although his loathing for his subject can't be entirely suppressed. In fact, the biography is a little frustrating to read because Nelson so utterly refuses to supply any kind of a narrative framework. He gives facts and contexts, but no interpretations. And there are a lot of places where I found myself asking, "But why on EARTH did Oxford do THAT?" If it's not in the primary material, Nelson doesn't attempt to provide answers, and even though that's frustrating, I admire him for it very much.
The seventeenth Earl of Oxford was a selfish, greedy, vain, profligate man, who lied and cheated and murdered his way through an utterly undistinguished life, routinely betraying his friends and dependents and treating those who tried to help him with the utmost ingratitude.
I'll take the glover's son from Stratford, thank you.
no subject
The most fascinating thing about those think that Oxford (or Bess herself, or any one of half a dozen others)is the revelation of their own intense class (and intellectual) prejudice. Not only don't they believe that a jobbing actor of middle class origins could not have written THOSE plays, they believe it had to be an aristocrat (often on the barmy premise that Shakespeare could not have known about Elizabethan courtly manners, when all they know about Elizabethan courtly manners was learned from reading Shakespeare) and/or someone who had been to University.
no subject