Customer Reviews
definitive but so very long - By: N. Housley, 12 Aug 2008 
I'm a great fan of Peter Ackroyd, whose technique is outstanding, but I nearly gave up on this book, somewhere around ch 57 which is entitled 'No more words, we beseech you'. A book of about 300 pp. as opposed to 500 would have been much more enjoyable.
The historical evidence about WS consists of two types of source: (1) a group of primarily legal texts about his investments, property purchases, his will & a few encounters with the law; & (2) comments by contemporaries, both favourable & hostile. There are more of (1) than I thought & many more of (2), so manyin fact that I'm amazed that the 'Who really wrote Shakespeare?' theorists persist. The picture that emerges is of an exceptionally professional, hard-working, pragmatic, well thought-of, reasonably convivial man, respected & admired by most of his contemporaries. Of Shakespeare's opinions, beliefs & convictions we know, as Ackroyd says time & time again, absolutely nothing. Stretching that picture to 500 pp. requires a vast amount of conjecture (Shakespeare would have done this, Shakespeare would have known that ... ) coupled with a huge amount of admiring comment about the plays, some of it pretty banal.
I agree with reviewers that this is as close to WS as we can hope to get, given that he left no clues at all about himself. It's definitive, certainly the last book I want to read about the man as opposed to the works. But it's too long.
Flawed - By: jfp2006, 11 May 2008 
My experience with Peter Ackroyd has been rather mixed. I enjoyed several of his novels: "Chatterton", "First Light", "Dan Leno And The Limehouse Golem" with its clever twist, the weird & wonderful "Hawksmoor" especially... but I found I only enjoyed dipping into "London: The Biography", & I totally failed to engage with "Albion: The Origins Of The English Imagination".
While writing a "biography" of London was a sufficiently original approach to justify the use of the definite article, it was perhaps just a teeny-weeny bit presumptuous,in such a heavily populated area of scholarship, to entitle this work "Shakespeare/The Biography". After all, Ackroyd's biographies of Dickens & Blake are just called "Dickens" & "Blake". And, at the beginning of his hefty bibliography, the author himself confesses to his lack of particular expertisein matters Shakespearean:
"I came to this study as a Shakespearian [sic] enthusiast rather than expert, & my debt to previous scholarship is as obvious as it is profound."
It would be interesting to know what the specialists have made of this. I certainly found it as readable as most biographies (not my own specialist area, or my preferred one, by a long way...), but it ironically confirmed for me what I have always thought,in other words that Shakespeare's works are such that any information about his life simply does not stand comparison. And I concluded, once again, that Shakespeare is so muchin a quasi-mythical class of his own that any attempt at writing about the man is perilous at best, & perhaps even irrelevant...
Having said all that, I found a lot to ponder here, & had no difficulty at allin keeping reading. But time & time again I found myself saying "Yes, must read that bitin "Hamlet"/"Twelfth Night"/whatever... again." (And it also made me want to read the plays I confess to never having read: "Pericles"/"Coriolanus"/"All's Well That Ends Well"/whatever... )
Ackroyd clearly knows the complete oeuvre extremely well indeed. His observations about the plays are often extremely interesting, if occasionally rather idiosyncratic, not to say debatable... On the other hand, he is not always convincingin what he imagines about the period:
"When Shakespeare includes the famous stage-directionin "The Winter's Tale", 'Exit, pursued by a bear', the audience would have been able to picture the scene quite precisely."
Except, of course, that the audience wouldn't have been reading the stage-direction, given that they'd have been watching the play, & consequently wouldn't have needed to actually picture anything...
There are bits of information that are given twicein different parts of the book, such as the one about Shakespeare rewriting the character of Emiliain "Othello" to make her more sympathetic to the audience.
There are disappointments (in my view) too, such as Ackroyd having much more to say about the history plays than about the tragedies.
To his credit, Ackroyd gives an extremely vivid picture of London lifein Elizabethan England. But then he'd already "done" Londonin another book. In fact several others...
So... good, if occasionally controversial, on the plays. Very good on London. And on Shakespeare the man... well, so-so. And does anybody really care?
No holes Bard - By: Jon Chambers, 26 Dec 2007 
With shelves already creaking under the weight of so many Shakespeare biographies, what need another one? With its definite article, Ackroyd's title seems to imply that this could be the definitive account and, given his previous successin the field of literary biography (Dickens, Chaucer, Blake, Pound, Eliot, the Lambs, More), who can deny that his Shakespeare: The Biography is at least worth investigating?
For all its array of footnotes, this is not a work of scholarship (the notes are references to other works, not primary sources). It is, however, a work of insight & empathy of the kind that we might expect from one author writing about another. Given the relative paucity of valuable 'artistic' raw materials (as opposed to legal documents) & given, also, the unlikelihood of very many more contemporary documents cropping up, these qualities are all-important.
Some of the insights provided by Ackroyd seem invaluable - if obvious,in retrospect. It's the first time here, for instance, that I've met the idea that early plays bearing similar titles to Shakespearean works (eg The Troublesome Raigne of King John & The Taming of A Shrew) are not so much source materials for Shakespeare, as early drafts by the selfsame playwright. Ackroyd suggests that, by 1589, Shakespeare had written early versions of at least Titus Andronicus, The Taming of the Shrew, King John, Hamlet and, quite possibly, the apocryphal Edmund Ironside & Edward III as well. This is a very early date, of course, & doesn't reflect scholarly consensus. The beauty of the idea liesin the fact that it does a great deal to fillin much of the gaping hole of the 'missing years' problem. Furthermore, it explains why his rivals - like the embittered malcontents Robert Greene & Thomas Nashe - should have spent so much energy attacking the young playwright who, even by 1589, must have achieved some prominence. (Certainly so by 1592, when Shakespeare is attacked overtly by Greene.) The traditional account, that Shakespeare by this date might merely have written a couple of crude apprentice pieces, like Two Gentlemen of Verona & Titus Andronicus, begins to sound quite unconvincing all of a sudden.
Ackroyd is persuasivein his presentation of a dramatist being shaped by the (theatrical) company working around him. He suggests that the sudden departure or arrival of an important actor significantly changed the character of his plays. A notable example of this process being the replacement of the ad-libbing, dancing clown, Will Kempe, with the 'intellectual fool', Robert Armin, whose arrival heralded roles, from Touchstone on, of 'fools' who regularly break out into song & who are now more 'philosophical'.
A major strength of this biography is that it is part 'life' & part lit crit. Ackroyd the biographer observes, for instance, thatin writing Hamlet, Shakespeare draws upon a reservoir of personal experience, including the recent death of his son Hamnet (in 1596) & the even more recent death of his father (1601). Ackroyd the critic then goes on to suggest that the resulting play represents a movement towards greater introspection, of 'interiority' & a refinement of his use of soliloquy, which is now 'the index of an evolving consciousnessin which 'this is what I am' gives way to 'this is what I am becoming' '. A yet further layer is provided by Ackroyd the visionary, who divines that the Hamlet of 1601 is a re-working of an earlier play, & that this earlier play was published as the 'bad quarto' of 1594. The Hamlet discussion provides a good example of his presentation of Shakespeare as an evolving artist - one who was capable of writing hurried & imperfect work which was later moulded into the formin which we now know it, via the Folio of 1623. In Ackroyd's words, 'His was always a workin progress.'
But what kind of picture of Shakespeare the man does this biography paint? Ackroyd presents Shakespeare as a detached individual (although loyal to colleagues & friends). One who, both personally & artistically, mistrusted dogma. In religion, his father & his daughter Suzanna were recusants. Although the whole family seems to have had strong connections & affinities with Catholicism, the fact that Suzanna, his favourite daughter, married the Puritan Dr Hall, suggests that tolerance prevailed above all. Of Shakespeare's learning, Ackroyd tells us that he read solely for his work. He was emphatically not interestedin books orin learning for their own sakes. On aesthetics: 'Shakespeare did not have an aesthetic view of the drama at all, but a practical & empirical one.' And philosophy? According to Ackroyd, Shakespeare's whole cast of mind was entirely concrete, & more interestedin character & event thanin anything abstract. He is portrayed, therefore, as a man motivated by the thing that mattered most to him - success.
This is a very full account of Shakespeare's life that, above all, does much to suggest how some of the 'holes'in his subject's early career can be accounted for. While not being the definitive Shakespearean biography to end all such biographies, perhaps, it is always thought-provoking. Such as when Ackroyd advances the ideas that Shakespeare may have written a lot more than is acknowledgedin the 'canon', & (as paradoxical a notion as anythingin Romeo & Juliet) the thought that 'In the early years he may not even have been particularly Shakespearian'. Paradoxically again, while not relying on original research, Ackroyd manages to present a highly original take on the dramatist's life.
Shakespeare - By: Spider Monkey, 04 Jun 2007 Considering the lack of first hand biographical sources, this is a brilliant look at the life of Shakespeare. What information on his life is available has been brilliantly researched. I like the way this also looks at lifein London, &in the rest of the country, when Shakespeare was alive, it really gives you a feel for what he may have experienced & what may of shaped his views & writing. This has some nice colour plates as well. This book is fairly easy to read & although a little dryin places, it is well worth persevering with for an insightful look into an influential literary figure.
Excellent biography and historical analysis - By: Budge Burgess, 24 Sep 2005 Peter Ackroyd's biography of Shakespeare maintains the high standards he sets for himself & displays his ability to make historical analysis accessible to a wide public. The concrete facts known about Shakespeare are few & far between - there is plenty of room to speculate on the events of his life, his character, his outlook, even his authorship of plays & poems. Ackroyd's account is both compelling & convincing.
Much of the evidence for Shakespeare's life is open to interpretation, & this has led other biographers, like Anthony Holden, to rely heavily on textual analysis & deconstruction of his writing to provide clues or to verify conclusions. Ackroyd also looks to textual analysis, providing literary examples & references to the plays & sonnets to evidence the bard's likely lifestyle & experiences.
Ackroyd, however, is quite circumspectin this. He doesn't leap to conclusions, but provides what appears to be a very balanced & well reasoned biography. He parallels textual analysis with historical analysis, looking to the social, religious, & cultural history of Shakespeare's England, & trying to present the playwright as a creature of his times.
Ackroyd handles claims about Shakespeare's Catholicism with considerable skill. This was an era of great religious tension & religious change. It would be highly surprising if everyone had happily resigned their allegiance to the old religion & joyfully embraced the new, English Church. The Shakespeares had plenty of Catholic connections & William's father seems to have been reluctant to renounce the old faith. Whether the playwright lost much sleep over his own religious beliefs is another question.
Ackroyd's Shakespeare is a man of his times, a man who grows upin rural England, who understands the natural world, who understands the crafts & lifestyles of a large village, who understands the fields & the forests, who understands his own Warwickshire dialect, but whose father is affluent enough & influential enough to secure him a decent schooling & fire his enthusiasm for the written word & storytelling.
This is a Shakespeare who absorbs stories from the Classical past & the European tradition, who hears tales of local life, who grows into a keen observer of human life. This is a man who takes popular tales or themes & weaves them into greater fantasies, elevating them yet further by his magical use of language & presentation of the human condition.
Ackroyd's Shakespeare is a man who grows with his age, who moves from village life to city life, becoming a celebrityin London, a man who can converse with the lowest & the highest classes & win their hearts.
Yet it's a fraught world, a world where it is not a good idea to court the enmity of the monarch or the court. It's a world of censorship, of careful regulation of literature & suspicion of the newly emergent theatre. It's a worldin which a man on the make must tread carefully.
This is an excellent, very readable, authoritative account. Ackroyd delivers a very believable picture of the Elizabethan world & delivers a very human actor at the centre of his biography. Literary references do not become intrusive - it doesn't degenerate into long passages of literary criticism; rather the analysis is kept dynamic & influential.
An excellent work, to be welcomed by Shakespearean enthusiasts, but also to be enjoyed by the fan of biography & popular history. Highly recommended.
