Carmelo Bono
I.D.
Professor
Warburton
English 3816
Oct.-6-11
Dictionary of National Biography Assignment
1.
Mary Wroth is a writer mainly
of poetry but some prose as well. She was born on the day of October the 18th,
scholars believe that it was probably 1587 but it is not a solid fact. Wroth
was the eldest of eleven children and was the longest surviving child of her
and her siblings. Robert Sidney (First Earl of Leicester and Viscount Lisle of
Penshurst) and Barbra Sidney (Wealthy Welsh Heiress) are the proud parents of
the great female writer. Wroth’s parents decided to name her after her aunt,
Mary Herbert (countess of Pembroke). Wroth was said to be a very bright and
eager to learn young lady. Aside from the fact that she comes from a large
portion of politicians, nobles and writers; scholars assume that her talent was
greatly influenced by her aunt because she was sent to spend a lot of time with
her Aunt Herbert. Mary Wroth (formerly Mary Sidney till marriage) married
Robert Wroth September 27, and unhappily married until he passed away leaving
her widowed. She moved to Woodford after most of her writing in 1643, and died
with little to no record in either 1651 or 1653.
2. Some people who are
cross referenced with Mary Wroth are William Herbert, Sir Robert Wroth, Mary
Herbert, Sir Philip Sidney, and Barbara Sidney. The Sidneys (Philip and Babara)
are Wroth’s parents. The Herberts (Mary and William) are Wroth’s Aunt and
Uncle, Her aunt Mary is the one woman she was named after. Sir Robert Wroth is Mary
Wroth’s husband whom she got her last name from.
3. The categories and/or
subheadings used by the biographer to analyze the life of Mary Wroth are, an
unnamed section (general info), Marriage
and Early Widowhood, Urania and Sonnets and Love’s Victory. These
categories and/or subheadings make it seem as though the Biographer does not
fully grasp the life that Mary Wroth and feels that her life was short and
unimportant. The
biographer also leads the reader to the conclusion that the life of
Mary Wroth was short and uneventful, as if she got married and that was the big
plot line in her life.
4. The biography mentions
Wroth’s Urania, Love’s Victory, ‘Pamphilia to
Amphilatheis’, Like to the Indians,
and Scorched by The Sunne. Not all of
Wroth’s works were mentioned assumingly because the biographer didn’t find them
not worthy which is foolish since all of Wroth’s writing is great. The Works
emphasized are Urania, and Love’s Victory, but even though they are
emphasized in the biography, they are not explained or discussed very well. The
biography briefly describes the history behind each emphasized work, and Love’s Victory is the only work that is
analyzed. Compared to the introduction given in Women Writers In Renaissance England edited by Randall Martin this
discussion of Wroth’s works is dominated mercilessly. The introduction from the
anthology went into great detail not only about the history and influence of
the poem but in terms of the analyzing of it all as well.
5. Mary Herbert is the
Aunt of Mary Wroth as well as the reason Wroth’s frist name is Mary. The
quality of the connection that the biographer is trying to make is very good.
The connection that seems to be made between Wroth and Herbert is that Herbert
is a big influence on Wroth’s work and Wroth did not get a chance to go through
everything as Herbert did but still lived a life of writing.
6. Mary Herbert’s biographical
categories and/or subheadings in this biography start with an unnamed section
(general introduction information). The next category is Education and
Marriage, Literary Patronage, Writing, then Death and Reputation. From this
slight difference in categories, I notice that Mary Herbert has a much more
extensive background and livelier life, not to much mention the prestigious education.
The biographer seemingly down plays Wroth’s life as if she is a mere support
character in the story of Herbert’s life. Wroth only had her Marriage/widowhood
as a
subheading as well two of her writing’s titles, not even her death.
The death of Wroth apparently did not deserve its own subheading whereas
Herbert’s death did. The fact that Wroth’s biography has death under the same
heading as her writing’s title makes it seem like after she wrote that last bit
of work, she died to the world.
7. Mary Wroth and Mary
Herbert have the same amount of information noted in the biography, however the
amount of detail put into that information is very unequal. Even though the
same topics and information are touched upon the biographer goes into more
depth with it, for example the death of Mary Wroth is merely left to a question
of “when did she die” with no further information pertaining to it. Mary
Herbert died of smallpox with an exact address given. The one thing that was
mentioned with Herbert that was not mentioned with Wroth was reputation, the
biographer must have felt that the reputation of Wroth was not worth mentioning
even though she is more recent than Herbert.
8. These roles would
increase the quality and quantity of the biography a great deal. Knowing the
class, marital status, sex, education and other social categories makes it
easier for the reader to understand and get a feel for the type of like the
person whom the biography is about, lived. All of the social categories listed
above help describe to a reader, not just about the life of whom is being written
about but about the time period as well. For the most part the biographer did
record all of the necessary information to know about the life and times of
Wroth and Herbert because that is necessary information for a biography. The
Biographer in this case, unlike Herbert’s biography did not go into a lot of
detail about Wroth’s education and marriage. The DNB is a good resource however
it is not an excellent resource. It lacks certainty as we have seen with Mary
Wroth’s biography and generalizations as we once again had seen with Wroth’s
biography. On the other hand it has other biographies such as Mary Herbert’s
that are a lot better and well laid out as well as very
well detailed. So I conclude that the DNB is not a primary resource
but a good secondary resource, however it can work vice versa because it is a
circumstantial tool.
9. The DNB is somewhere
you may refer to for confirmation of information or other small specific types
of information. Mary Wroth’s profile has information to bring to class
discussion however it severely lacks academic credibility because it is full of
alleged statements and possible situations. I found an inconsistency in the DNB
while researching, in William Herbert’s profile, it states he did have an
affair with his widowed cousin (Mary Wroth), where Wroth’s profile stated it
was an alleged affair. This inconsistency can throw a researcher off, which is
not good for an official document to do. The DNB meets limits in many ways but
it is different for every profile, Wroth’s profile was extremely vague and
lacking, Mary Herbert’s profile is well written and simple to understand.
William Herbert’s profile is very specific and calls to specific historical
events.
Works Cited
1. Margaret
Patterson Hannay, ‘Herbert [
2. Mary Ellen Lamb,
‘Wroth , Lady Mary
(1587?–1651/1653)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography,
Oxford University Press, 2004; online edn, Jan 2008
[http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/30082, accessed
No comments:
Post a Comment