What do you think?
Rate this book
Liverpool English Texts and Studies
Monstrous Adversary: The Life of Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford (Liverpool English Texts and Studies, 40)
The Elizabethan Court poet Edward de Vere has, since 1920, lived a notorious second, wholly illegitimate life as the putative author of the poems and plays of William Shakespeare. The work reconstructs Oxford’s life, assesses his poetic works, and demonstrates the absurdity of attributing Shakespeare’s works to him. The first documentary biography of Oxford in over seventy years, Monstrous Adversary seeks to measure the real Oxford against the myth. Impeccably researched and presenting many documents written by Oxford himself, Nelson’s book provides a unique insight into Elizabethan society and manners through the eyes of a man whose life was privately scandalous and richly documented.
- GenresShakespeare
548 pages, Paperback
First published September 1, 2003
49 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
May 3, 2025
Thank goodness someone has finally written the book that should lay to rest the idea that the 17th Earl of Oxford wrote Shakespeare's plays. The whole idea was the result of the same middle class English snobbery that made it essential for all crimes to be solved by upper crust or amateur detectives. The English middle classes were frightened by the way the world was no longer placing it's trust in men of 'character' - by which they meant products of public schools who actually had no training in anything - but rather in rather experts, which because they had actually been trained to do something seemed to mean tradesmen. Which is why so many middle class English men and women believed in amateur detectives as crime solvers and an aristocrat as the real author of Shakespeare's plays. He couldn't possibly be some common man, common people were there to serve the upper and middle class and we're getting far too uppity.
Of course none of these ardent lovers of an earl as secret author of Hamlet and the rest had the skills or knowledge to do any archival work (long amounts free time thanks to cheap servants made them a whizz at crossword puzzles, word play and ciphers but lousy at research. In addition they were lazy and more importantly they didn't know how. Universities were places to get drunk and fornicate at, only boring squibs read books. Being clever toffs they just knew things) so they created out of their imaginations and wishful thinking the biography of the 17th earl of Oxford as a veritable 'parfait gentle knight' and scholar, a man of words and noble thoughts and actions, not some money grubbing oik related to bankrupt tradespeople. He was a courtier who lived in a world of elevated thoughts and actions. Their idea of a English earl of Shakespeare's day was as imaginary and wrong as that of an earl of their own day.
It is astounding that people have regurgitated the tired idea that because he wasn't noble Shakespeare could not have an education or know and write about the things he was not born to. But surely the earl of Oxford could and did.
But then look at the 17th earl of Oxford's real life as is simply documented here in this splendid book. He was a bore (probably in all senses of the word) murderer, bully, yob, spendthrift and someone who was obsessed with money, how to get, steal or borrow it, he spent the vast majority of his time at court seeking favours all related to money and income. He was the most grotesque money grubber, he just didn't have the intelligence to work or to try to acquire it by any thought or action of his own. He insulted and maltreated people, he murdered one man and got away because he was an earl. No one seems to have liked him or had a good word to say about him.
Even the idea that it was unacceptable for someone for someone of Oxford's standing to publish or be involved in the theatre is rubbish. Indeed all the reasons why Shakespeare didn't and couldn't have written the plays is garbage. Just because someone like Mark Twain thought it likely doesn't mean anything. I admire Twain in many ways but his views on Elizabethan authorship are as relevant as his views on traveling to the moon.
I wish people would read this book so this ridiculous idea of Shakespeare not writing the plays could be buried for ever. It is as out of date as antimacassars, aspidistra plants and calling radio the 'wireless'.
Of course I know the stupid controversy rages on still, books are still being produced but if you want to know the truth read this book. It isn't really about the debate it is about the 17th earl of Oxford and if you still want him as the author of Shakespeare then no doubt you also believe in Atlantis.
Of course none of these ardent lovers of an earl as secret author of Hamlet and the rest had the skills or knowledge to do any archival work (long amounts free time thanks to cheap servants made them a whizz at crossword puzzles, word play and ciphers but lousy at research. In addition they were lazy and more importantly they didn't know how. Universities were places to get drunk and fornicate at, only boring squibs read books. Being clever toffs they just knew things) so they created out of their imaginations and wishful thinking the biography of the 17th earl of Oxford as a veritable 'parfait gentle knight' and scholar, a man of words and noble thoughts and actions, not some money grubbing oik related to bankrupt tradespeople. He was a courtier who lived in a world of elevated thoughts and actions. Their idea of a English earl of Shakespeare's day was as imaginary and wrong as that of an earl of their own day.
It is astounding that people have regurgitated the tired idea that because he wasn't noble Shakespeare could not have an education or know and write about the things he was not born to. But surely the earl of Oxford could and did.
But then look at the 17th earl of Oxford's real life as is simply documented here in this splendid book. He was a bore (probably in all senses of the word) murderer, bully, yob, spendthrift and someone who was obsessed with money, how to get, steal or borrow it, he spent the vast majority of his time at court seeking favours all related to money and income. He was the most grotesque money grubber, he just didn't have the intelligence to work or to try to acquire it by any thought or action of his own. He insulted and maltreated people, he murdered one man and got away because he was an earl. No one seems to have liked him or had a good word to say about him.
Even the idea that it was unacceptable for someone for someone of Oxford's standing to publish or be involved in the theatre is rubbish. Indeed all the reasons why Shakespeare didn't and couldn't have written the plays is garbage. Just because someone like Mark Twain thought it likely doesn't mean anything. I admire Twain in many ways but his views on Elizabethan authorship are as relevant as his views on traveling to the moon.
I wish people would read this book so this ridiculous idea of Shakespeare not writing the plays could be buried for ever. It is as out of date as antimacassars, aspidistra plants and calling radio the 'wireless'.
Of course I know the stupid controversy rages on still, books are still being produced but if you want to know the truth read this book. It isn't really about the debate it is about the 17th earl of Oxford and if you still want him as the author of Shakespeare then no doubt you also believe in Atlantis.
January 2, 2016
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.
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.
April 15, 2012
Monstrous Adversary by Alan H. Nelson is a careful examination of the life of Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford (1550-1604). The title of the book is taken from a quote by Charles Arundel, who at one time was Oxford’s very close friend, but who grew to think of him “as a ‘monster’ capable of any crime: ‘my monstrus adversarye Oxford, who wold drinke my blud rather than wine, as well as he loves it’“(p.214.) Ironically, Oxford is, if not the leading contender, one of the contenders being promoted by many individuals and groups as the “real” writer of the revered works of the man called Shakespeare.
It’s taken me almost 2 years to read. Now, and then, I had to put it aside to rest my little brain cells. One of the things that slowed my progress was that about half the book consists of primary documents in a very small font, in the unstandardized spelling of the time by various people who owned wide differences in education and communication skills. The last 85 pages of the book include notes, appendices, a bibliography, and an index, which verify how extensive Mr. Nelson’s documentation is. It’s not light reading for a summer beach on vacation; but it is a meaty and mighty exploration of a vain, selfish, manipulating fop of a man. He was accused of sodomy, adultery, dishonesty, murder, exploitation, violence, treachery, and treason. (And rightly so most of the time, according to the documentary evidence) His poetry is uneven in quality; most of his writing in the book was for the purpose of personal gain, denying he owed his creditors, or whining to one of the Queen’s agents (particularly Lord Burghley, her Treasurer) to request that the Queen grant him land or moneymaking monopolies on goods or resources. Starting out as one of the richest noblemen in the kingdom, he sold off and depleted his entire fortune before he died. “No acquaintance or stranger is known to have mourned Oxford’s passing”(p. 426).
Not much is said about the authorship debate. Do I think he wrote the wondrously human, enriching, lyrical poems, and thought-provoking plays that have endured under “the man from Stratford’s” name? I don’t know. My brain is open to debate. My soul, my heart, say, “No. Absolutely, No, Please.”
It’s taken me almost 2 years to read. Now, and then, I had to put it aside to rest my little brain cells. One of the things that slowed my progress was that about half the book consists of primary documents in a very small font, in the unstandardized spelling of the time by various people who owned wide differences in education and communication skills. The last 85 pages of the book include notes, appendices, a bibliography, and an index, which verify how extensive Mr. Nelson’s documentation is. It’s not light reading for a summer beach on vacation; but it is a meaty and mighty exploration of a vain, selfish, manipulating fop of a man. He was accused of sodomy, adultery, dishonesty, murder, exploitation, violence, treachery, and treason. (And rightly so most of the time, according to the documentary evidence) His poetry is uneven in quality; most of his writing in the book was for the purpose of personal gain, denying he owed his creditors, or whining to one of the Queen’s agents (particularly Lord Burghley, her Treasurer) to request that the Queen grant him land or moneymaking monopolies on goods or resources. Starting out as one of the richest noblemen in the kingdom, he sold off and depleted his entire fortune before he died. “No acquaintance or stranger is known to have mourned Oxford’s passing”(p. 426).
Not much is said about the authorship debate. Do I think he wrote the wondrously human, enriching, lyrical poems, and thought-provoking plays that have endured under “the man from Stratford’s” name? I don’t know. My brain is open to debate. My soul, my heart, say, “No. Absolutely, No, Please.”
August 14, 2022
This is not so much of a biography than a vehemently anti-Oxfordian broadside in the Shakespeare authorship war. That said, the book does contain much fascinating and useful primary material which points out that the 17th Earl of Oxford was an astounding spendthrift, a loudmouth, an absent husband and father, a sexual adventurer and an often selfish individual.
None of these qualities excludes a person from being an artistic genius -- in fact, some could argue that they're prerequisites, looking at the lives of many of them -- but Nelson really shoots far too many arrows at Oxford while avoiding other targets worthy of equal criticism. He also fails to answer the question why, if Oxford was such a horrible, evil demon in the opinion of some, was he also, in the eyes of others (including the queen and the Lord Treasurer) worthy of being excused, protected and rewarded? I don't buy the argument that it was simply because he was an Earl: Essex, also an Earl, lost his head. So did Norfolk, who as a Duke ranked higher. Not to mention Mary, Queen of Scots, whose even higher rank didn't protect her from the axe. I think he may have had supporters who overlooked his many faults because he was one of those individuals who is personally very charming yet polarizing; fun to be around, but you wouldn't let him date your sister -- that sort of thing.
The biggest argument against Oxford's authorship of the Shakespeare canon remains the fact that his writings under his own name, though voluminous in content, are quite underwhelming in quality. He did write some beautiful poetry, but he also wrote mediocre verse; most of all, his personal letters were tedious, lengthy, repetiitive and dull. It's possible that if he was also Shakespeare he could have written as the bard in a radically different voice, but then we'd be in the realm of having to consider Edward suffering from multiple personality disorder, so dissonant are the two styles.
This legitimate criticism of De Vere as a possible Shakespeare candidate is mentioned by Nelson, but it is effectively overwhelmed by Nelson's barrage of outrage and vitriol against Oxford's personal life, which ( as can be seen from the likes of Hemingway, O'Neill, John Lennon, etc..) is often no condemnation of the ability of an artist. As such, I think this book's valid arguments against Oxford's authorship of the Shakespeare canon are weakened by the author's obvious distaste for his subject. They lead the reader too easily to conclude that Nelson has a chip on his shoulder and, as such, that they can discount the text in its entirety (as apparently many Oxfordians have).
None of these qualities excludes a person from being an artistic genius -- in fact, some could argue that they're prerequisites, looking at the lives of many of them -- but Nelson really shoots far too many arrows at Oxford while avoiding other targets worthy of equal criticism. He also fails to answer the question why, if Oxford was such a horrible, evil demon in the opinion of some, was he also, in the eyes of others (including the queen and the Lord Treasurer) worthy of being excused, protected and rewarded? I don't buy the argument that it was simply because he was an Earl: Essex, also an Earl, lost his head. So did Norfolk, who as a Duke ranked higher. Not to mention Mary, Queen of Scots, whose even higher rank didn't protect her from the axe. I think he may have had supporters who overlooked his many faults because he was one of those individuals who is personally very charming yet polarizing; fun to be around, but you wouldn't let him date your sister -- that sort of thing.
The biggest argument against Oxford's authorship of the Shakespeare canon remains the fact that his writings under his own name, though voluminous in content, are quite underwhelming in quality. He did write some beautiful poetry, but he also wrote mediocre verse; most of all, his personal letters were tedious, lengthy, repetiitive and dull. It's possible that if he was also Shakespeare he could have written as the bard in a radically different voice, but then we'd be in the realm of having to consider Edward suffering from multiple personality disorder, so dissonant are the two styles.
This legitimate criticism of De Vere as a possible Shakespeare candidate is mentioned by Nelson, but it is effectively overwhelmed by Nelson's barrage of outrage and vitriol against Oxford's personal life, which ( as can be seen from the likes of Hemingway, O'Neill, John Lennon, etc..) is often no condemnation of the ability of an artist. As such, I think this book's valid arguments against Oxford's authorship of the Shakespeare canon are weakened by the author's obvious distaste for his subject. They lead the reader too easily to conclude that Nelson has a chip on his shoulder and, as such, that they can discount the text in its entirety (as apparently many Oxfordians have).
March 4, 2015
If an Oxfordian could be persuaded to read this book with that alleged "open mind" of theirs then while they may still doubt that William Shakespeare of Stratford-on-Avon wrote those plays and poems attributed to him they would no longer be Oxfordians.
Alan H. Nelson goes through just about every extent piece of paper written by Oxford, places them in context with the writings and memories of other contemporaries, comes to some really excellent conclusions regarding the man.
Oxford wrote as a man educated in East Anglia would write text, and accordingly he most likely spoke with a "provincial dialect." (p. 65) Oxford had many idiosyncrasies regarding spelling-he apparently had no single spelling for many words even within the same letter, which Nelson notes, and Oxford's grasp on Latin was also mixed. On the one hand he could occasionally throw out Latin phrases-specifically Latin legal phrases, but he also did not grasp the word Stanners that comes directly from the Latin word stannum. He was an accomplished dramatist (published under his own name no less), and reasonable poet-although only the reputation of his plays have come down to us, and a few poems that range in literary quality from quite poor to better than average.
Based upon the surviving documentary evidence it seems that in spite of having been born into an impressive fortune, and being educated by really excellent teachers Oxford was quite a failure. He ran his estates to the ground, and had to request a thousand pound salary from Elizabeth I. He spent a good portion of his life consumed with sexual escapades-indeed his trips to the continent were largely to fulfill this need (and not the literary sightseeing others have imagined), he turned his friends over for prosecution, he was not hesitant to coerce money from people, he drank excessively, he murdered a man (and then claimed that it wasn't his fault), and he also organized gangs to attack his rivals in street brawls and was banished from court for such behavior. On his death bed he left nothing to provide for his family, and actually left no will either.
Far from being the true author of Shakespeare's plays the real Edward Oxford combined the finances of Jay Gatsby, with the cunning of Tom Ripley. In our present era of celebrity worship he would have made an excellent Enron, or Goldman-Sachs executive.
Alan H. Nelson goes through just about every extent piece of paper written by Oxford, places them in context with the writings and memories of other contemporaries, comes to some really excellent conclusions regarding the man.
Oxford wrote as a man educated in East Anglia would write text, and accordingly he most likely spoke with a "provincial dialect." (p. 65) Oxford had many idiosyncrasies regarding spelling-he apparently had no single spelling for many words even within the same letter, which Nelson notes, and Oxford's grasp on Latin was also mixed. On the one hand he could occasionally throw out Latin phrases-specifically Latin legal phrases, but he also did not grasp the word Stanners that comes directly from the Latin word stannum. He was an accomplished dramatist (published under his own name no less), and reasonable poet-although only the reputation of his plays have come down to us, and a few poems that range in literary quality from quite poor to better than average.
Based upon the surviving documentary evidence it seems that in spite of having been born into an impressive fortune, and being educated by really excellent teachers Oxford was quite a failure. He ran his estates to the ground, and had to request a thousand pound salary from Elizabeth I. He spent a good portion of his life consumed with sexual escapades-indeed his trips to the continent were largely to fulfill this need (and not the literary sightseeing others have imagined), he turned his friends over for prosecution, he was not hesitant to coerce money from people, he drank excessively, he murdered a man (and then claimed that it wasn't his fault), and he also organized gangs to attack his rivals in street brawls and was banished from court for such behavior. On his death bed he left nothing to provide for his family, and actually left no will either.
Far from being the true author of Shakespeare's plays the real Edward Oxford combined the finances of Jay Gatsby, with the cunning of Tom Ripley. In our present era of celebrity worship he would have made an excellent Enron, or Goldman-Sachs executive.
January 24, 2014
Don't let Nelson bluff you-and he really does try to do just that!
This review is a good place to start checking him out.
http://www.shakespeare-oxford.com/?p=37
On a very rapid first perusal,I found some twenty equally appalling examples.
This review is a good place to start checking him out.
http://www.shakespeare-oxford.com/?p=37
On a very rapid first perusal,I found some twenty equally appalling examples.
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews