Shakespeare of London

I thought Shakespeare of London by Marchette Chute was an excellent biography for several reasons. She wrote in a very readable, engaging style which was easy to follow and understand. Prior to reading this book, I had read a lot of information about Shakespeare. Initially, when I started reading this book I was a little put off by the "just-the-facts-mam" style, but the more I read the more I appreciated the biographer telling the facts she knew without overindulging in assumptions based on these facts, as other more recent biographers have done. I also really appreciated how she fully grounded Shakespeare in his time and place and vocation. As a lit student in college, all I ever heard about was Shakespeare's literary genius as a playwright; the fact that he remained a prominant actor in his company during the entire time he was writing plays was completely glossed over. This book, which never disregards Shakespeare as an actor, was something of a revelation to me. At times I felt her potrayal of Shakespeare as a person may have been a bit naive because she never attributed any remotely bad characteristic to him, but overall, I thought the biography was exceptionally well done. I would highly recommend it to anyone who wants solid, unbiased information about the Shakespeare of London.

Shakespeare of London not only has the most plain old-fashioned charm of any Shakespeare bio I've ever read, it helps make sense of the man and his work using details of the world he lived in and the people he knew in a way that more popular books of the bard just do not. He not only comes alive - he lives up to expectations!

Chute has written a terrific account of a difficult life. Biographies of Shakespeare are difficult in that there is so little known of his life. This is unusual -- and somewhat ironic, given the subject matter -- when one takes into account the Elizabethan's propensity for journaling. But Chute is able to place Shakespeare firmly within his time, making few assumptions, but presenting the known facts of Shakespeare's life in a lively and fascinating manner. She strongly establishes the assumption that Shakespeare was considered one of London's finest actors and also places context around the performance of the plays. What is most fascinating is how Chute gives a glimpse into the contemporary response to Shakespeare's writings. While Shakespeare's "competitors" -- that is, his contemporary playwrights -- may have appreciated the breadth and scale of his writing, to a certain extent, they looked down upon the popularity of his plays. Just like today, the so-called elite of our society tend to overlook those writings or performances that are appreciated by a mass audience. Where Chute falls down somewhat is that, like so many biographers, she over-apologizes for her subject. In Chute's vivid description, Shakespeare, seemingly, could do no wrong. Time and again, Chute refutes the contemporary criticisms that were made of Shakespeare's writings. Fault can be found in geniuses, as well as hacks. Her book ends perhaps one chapter too late. After Shakespeare was finished professionally, he retired to a quiet life in Stratford. The only extant writing that refers to Shakespeare's final years are lawsuits that appear with his name. While it does give a minimal sense of Shakespeare's activities, it does not make for very interesting reading and, in fact, places an overemphasis on perhaps meaningless records. But this minimal criticism aside, Chute's book overall gives a wonderful sense of a fascinating person living in a fascinating time.

For some reason I have been obtaining and reading biographies of William Shakespeare lately. This book, and the recent biography by Peter Levi, are the ones I have been most satisfied with. The real strength of Professor Chute's book is her insistence on placing Shakespeare accurately as one of the most famous ACTORS of his day. On lists of the companies of players he often appears first or second. Now, as Prof. Chute makes clearer than anyone else, this tells us a lot about the man. Prominent actors not only had to be healthy and athletic, they had to be great fencers... the audience expected to see incredible swordplay, not fakery... wonderful dancers... the performance always ended with the cast doing elaborate ensemble dances as well as individual specialties... and expert instrumentalists or singers... the play began with a concert lasting about half an hour. All this in addition to being able to play well a variety of parts (including several parts in the same performance) on very short notice and with very short preparation. Prof. Chute is sound and grounded about many aspects of Shakespeare's life that lead other biographers to wild surmises. I suspect she is about the only biographer to understand how Shakespeare's marriage worked. No matter how much you have read about Shakespeare, you will find many new insights and perspectives in this book.

We know very little about William Shakespeare. He wrote in a time after the invention of the printing press, but before the invention of newspapers and magazines, so the sort of journalism which we rely on today to tell us more than we want to know about the inner lives of show-business figures did not exist during his lifetime.Anyone who wants to write a full-length biography of this man, one of the greatest writers of our planet, has two choices. She can either make up stuff along the way, as countless Shakespeare biographers have done since the 1600s, or she can stick to the fragmentary facts and fit them into a picture of the social structure and life that Shakespeare lived in. This is what Chute does in her now out-of-print classic, and as readers of this review can see, I think she did a superb job. Chute's book is superb not only because she is a vivid writer, not only because she tells us why certain things were the way they were, but because she respects the people she is writing about. When she tells us why Elizabethan "players" and their property managers liked tawny-orange dye for their costumes, she not only tells us why they liked it (it was a "color-fast" dye which would not fade) but conveys to us some of the combination of freedom and limits which made up Elizabethan society. The men and women of London were people who, on the one hand, could not buy the color-stable, wash-and-wear clothes we wear without a thought today, but on the other hand, if they could find a good dye or could afford to wear a bright color, they could gaudy themselves up in a way which grownups are too shy to do nowadays. As always, something has been lost and something has been gained, and Chute knows this and doesn't write history on the basis of "look at how many mistakes those poor little people made" or "look at all those great heroes of the past." They are men and women and children who could have learned from us, and we can learn from them. All of them, Shakespeare first among them but not the only one.