The life of Edward de Vere (1550–1604) was almost exactly contemporaneous with the latter half of the sixteenth century, and just overlapped the reign of Elizabeth I at both ends. As 17th Earl of Oxford he was among England's premier noblemen – very few approached being the seventeenth of anything. But he held no office of consequence, nor performed a notable deed. He served, it is true, as Lord Great (or High) Chamberlain, but that office was purely ceremonial, and quite distinct from that of Lord Chamberlain.

Oxford neglected to serve others for the simple reason that his first aim in life was to serve himself. Of his estates he wrote to his father-in-law, the famous Lord Burghley:

That is to say: I have no resource but my own properties; they are meant to serve me, I am not meant to serve them.

Feudal rank was theoretically based on the very opposite principle: that noblemen held property first by royal grant and then by inheritance precisely in exchange for service. Movers and shakers of the Elizabethan age embraced this principle with zeal. Some, like Sir Francis Walsingham, happily bankrupted themselves in the effort. Others, including Lord Burghley and Sir Christopher Hatton, accumulated apparent wealth, but gave such bountiful service that by any reasonable measure they were under-compensated for their pains.

Though lack of service would make Oxford virtually irrelevant to historians of the Elizabethan reign, he remains an object of curiosity for cultural and literary historians. He was a leader of fashion, a court poet of modest ability, and a patron of writers and performers. Additionally, he lived a life so privately scandalous and so richly documented that his biography opens a window onto secret passages of Elizabethan life and manners. Oxford has also been touted, for the past eighty years, as the author of the poems and plays of William Shakespeare. It has become a matter of urgency to measure the real Oxford against the myth created by partisan apologists, and all too often embraced without critical rigour by the popular press – even by justices of the United States Supreme Court.

Oxford's character has been estimated differently by different observers. Contemporary praise came mostly from would-be protégés such as Gabriel Harvey (1578):