What do you think?
Rate this book
William Shakespeare: A Compact Documentary Life
Covering 400 years of Shakespeare scholarship, Schoenbaum's now classic William Shakespeare: A Documentary Life received high acclaim from critics and scholars. The New York Review of Books called it "a masterpiece," and the Guardian labeled it "our best life of Shakespeare."
Making the resources of the world's greatest Shakespeare collections more accessible to all readers, this updated "Compact Life" contains a refined and amplified version of the original text and fifty of the original documents reproduced in smaller format. Schoenbaum has incorporated new material into his narrative, including an eyewitness account, in harrowing detail, of a murder believed to have occurred in New Place, the house that Shakespeare bought in Stratford in 1597. He also provides a new postscript which includes newly-compiled information from recent research on Shakespeare.
Making the resources of the world's greatest Shakespeare collections more accessible to all readers, this updated "Compact Life" contains a refined and amplified version of the original text and fifty of the original documents reproduced in smaller format. Schoenbaum has incorporated new material into his narrative, including an eyewitness account, in harrowing detail, of a murder believed to have occurred in New Place, the house that Shakespeare bought in Stratford in 1597. He also provides a new postscript which includes newly-compiled information from recent research on Shakespeare.
384 pages, Paperback
First published April 21, 1977
5 people are currently reading
156 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 - 9 of 9 reviews
October 3, 2024
This classic Shakespeare biography is a shortened version of the author's monumental Shakespeare: A Documentary Life, which will likely remain the canonical reference of its kind in my lifetime. This edition is intended for the lay reader, and for this non-specialist, at least, it certainly appears complete enough.
It is hard for me to imagine a better starting place for any reader seeking to know more about the genius behind the poetry and drama. Schoenbaum has masterfully assembled what little we know, and leveraged the documentary evidence to build up a surprisingly robust portrait of his subject. I very much appreciated the care he took to stick close to the evidence, and, when traditional stories are reproduced, to trace their genealogy and objectively evaluate their likely accuracy.
Readers looking for a more imaginative treatment will need to look elsewhere, but I would encourage them to start with Schoenbaum first, so they can be well grounded in the concrete data before moving on to speculation and conjecture.
It is hard for me to imagine a better starting place for any reader seeking to know more about the genius behind the poetry and drama. Schoenbaum has masterfully assembled what little we know, and leveraged the documentary evidence to build up a surprisingly robust portrait of his subject. I very much appreciated the care he took to stick close to the evidence, and, when traditional stories are reproduced, to trace their genealogy and objectively evaluate their likely accuracy.
Readers looking for a more imaginative treatment will need to look elsewhere, but I would encourage them to start with Schoenbaum first, so they can be well grounded in the concrete data before moving on to speculation and conjecture.
January 7, 2025
It begins with the most compact statement of Shakespeare’s life I know of.
The story of William Shakespeare’s life is a tale of two towns. Stratford bred him; London gave him, literally and figuratively, a stage for his fortune. In an unpretentious market-town he was born and reared in a house which has miraculously survived erosions by time and tourism. Before achieving his majority he took for his a bride a local girl past the bloom of youth; she bore him three children, one of whom, the only son, died young. In London, Shakespeare became a common player in plays, then a popular writer of plays - the most popular in his age, although the literati died no universally concur in the valuation; eventually he held shares in his theatrical company, which was the foremost in the land. With the pecuniary rewards for the triumphs of his art he invested prudently in dwellings, land, and tithes. That was mostly in his native Stratford, although he had lodgings in the capital. His last years he passed in a fine house, called New Place, he had purchased in his home town. There, shortly before his death, he drew up a will in which he remembered - in addition to kin - ordinary folk, Stratford neighbors, as well as the colleagues , his ‘fellows’, he esteemed most in the King’s troupe. He neglected to mention noble lords, although to one he had in early days dedicated two poems. In Stratford, Shakespeare died and was buried. Seven yeas later his collected plays were printed in a handsome folio volume. That event took place in London, which then, as now, was the centre of the publishing trade in England.
This is a scholarly work, and is surely invaluable to Shakespeare scholars, but, the fact remains that Shakespeare's life is very pedestrian and it does not illuminate his plays much. Thus, the details found here are mostly uninteresting. Of course, there are some details of secondary interest: the etymology of Stratford-upon-Avon (4) - "here the great road, or straet, leading north from London to Henley-in-Arden provided a passage, or ford, over the afon, which is Welsh signifies river" - , the logic behind picking Shakespeare’s birthday (24), the biblical allusions in Shakespeare (57-58) and the whole section on the scope and sequence of Elizabethan education (62-71). His Biblical references are worth mentioning.
"One learned Biblical scholar, ranging through all the works with the exception of Pericles and the non-dramatic poems, has identified quotations from, or references to, forty-two books of the Bible-eighteen each from the Old and New Testaments and six from the Apocrypha. Scarely a phrase from the first three chapters of Genesis escapes allusion in the plays. Job and the apocryphal Ecclesiasticus were favorite books, but the story of Cain left an especially powerful impression - Shakespeare refers to it at least twenty-five times. Evidently he continued to consult the Bible long after his youthful indoctrination [by referencing the Genevan Bible of 1595 in some of his middle plays]. Shakespeare refers more often to earlier than to later parts of books - chapters 1-4, for example, of the fifty chapters of Genesis - and shows greater familiarity with Genesis and Matthew than with any subsequent book from the Old or New Testament. Not surprisingly, he has lapses, mostly minor."
I ran across a passage when Schoenbaum quoted Stanley Wells' convincing counter argument to the tradition that Shakespeare wrote A Mindsummer Night's Dream to be performed for a wedding.
There is no outside evidence with any bearing on the matter. The theory has arisen from various features of the play itself. It is, certainly, much concerned with marriage, but so are many comedies. It ends with the fairies' blessing upon the married couples; but this is perfectly appropriate to Shakespeare's artistic scheme, and requires no other explanation ... A Midsummer Night's Dream (like Love's Labour's Lost) appears to require an unusually large number of boy actors. Hippolyta, Hermia, Helena, Titania, Peaseblosom, Cobweb, Moth, and Mustardseed would all have been boys' parts. Puck and Oberon too may have been played by boys or young men. But the title page of the first edition, printed in 1600, tells us that the play was 'sundry times publicly acted by the Right Honourable the Lord Chamberlain his servants.' If Shakespeare's company could at any time muster enough boys for public performances, we have no reason to doubt that it could have done so from the start. Thus the suggestion that the roles of the fairies were intended to be taken by children of the hypothetical noble house seems purely whimsical. The stage directions of the first edition, which was probably printed from Shakspeare's manuscript, show no essential differences from those in his other plays; a direction such as 'Enter a Fairie at one doore, and Robin goodfellow at another' (II.10) suggest that he had in mind the structure of the public theatres. Furthermore, although noble weddings in Shakespeare's time were sometimes graced with formal entertainments, usually of the nature of a masque, the first play certainly known to have been written for such an occasion is Samuel Daniel's Hymen's Triumph. This was performed in 1614, some twenty years after the composition of Midsummer Night's Dream. By this time the tradition of courtly entertainmnets had developed greatly; and Hymen's Triump does not appear to have been played in a public theatre.
(187)
This is a worthwhile reminder that inferences that seem plausible are not necessarily so.
The story of William Shakespeare’s life is a tale of two towns. Stratford bred him; London gave him, literally and figuratively, a stage for his fortune. In an unpretentious market-town he was born and reared in a house which has miraculously survived erosions by time and tourism. Before achieving his majority he took for his a bride a local girl past the bloom of youth; she bore him three children, one of whom, the only son, died young. In London, Shakespeare became a common player in plays, then a popular writer of plays - the most popular in his age, although the literati died no universally concur in the valuation; eventually he held shares in his theatrical company, which was the foremost in the land. With the pecuniary rewards for the triumphs of his art he invested prudently in dwellings, land, and tithes. That was mostly in his native Stratford, although he had lodgings in the capital. His last years he passed in a fine house, called New Place, he had purchased in his home town. There, shortly before his death, he drew up a will in which he remembered - in addition to kin - ordinary folk, Stratford neighbors, as well as the colleagues , his ‘fellows’, he esteemed most in the King’s troupe. He neglected to mention noble lords, although to one he had in early days dedicated two poems. In Stratford, Shakespeare died and was buried. Seven yeas later his collected plays were printed in a handsome folio volume. That event took place in London, which then, as now, was the centre of the publishing trade in England.
This is a scholarly work, and is surely invaluable to Shakespeare scholars, but, the fact remains that Shakespeare's life is very pedestrian and it does not illuminate his plays much. Thus, the details found here are mostly uninteresting. Of course, there are some details of secondary interest: the etymology of Stratford-upon-Avon (4) - "here the great road, or straet, leading north from London to Henley-in-Arden provided a passage, or ford, over the afon, which is Welsh signifies river" - , the logic behind picking Shakespeare’s birthday (24), the biblical allusions in Shakespeare (57-58) and the whole section on the scope and sequence of Elizabethan education (62-71). His Biblical references are worth mentioning.
"One learned Biblical scholar, ranging through all the works with the exception of Pericles and the non-dramatic poems, has identified quotations from, or references to, forty-two books of the Bible-eighteen each from the Old and New Testaments and six from the Apocrypha. Scarely a phrase from the first three chapters of Genesis escapes allusion in the plays. Job and the apocryphal Ecclesiasticus were favorite books, but the story of Cain left an especially powerful impression - Shakespeare refers to it at least twenty-five times. Evidently he continued to consult the Bible long after his youthful indoctrination [by referencing the Genevan Bible of 1595 in some of his middle plays]. Shakespeare refers more often to earlier than to later parts of books - chapters 1-4, for example, of the fifty chapters of Genesis - and shows greater familiarity with Genesis and Matthew than with any subsequent book from the Old or New Testament. Not surprisingly, he has lapses, mostly minor."
I ran across a passage when Schoenbaum quoted Stanley Wells' convincing counter argument to the tradition that Shakespeare wrote A Mindsummer Night's Dream to be performed for a wedding.
There is no outside evidence with any bearing on the matter. The theory has arisen from various features of the play itself. It is, certainly, much concerned with marriage, but so are many comedies. It ends with the fairies' blessing upon the married couples; but this is perfectly appropriate to Shakespeare's artistic scheme, and requires no other explanation ... A Midsummer Night's Dream (like Love's Labour's Lost) appears to require an unusually large number of boy actors. Hippolyta, Hermia, Helena, Titania, Peaseblosom, Cobweb, Moth, and Mustardseed would all have been boys' parts. Puck and Oberon too may have been played by boys or young men. But the title page of the first edition, printed in 1600, tells us that the play was 'sundry times publicly acted by the Right Honourable the Lord Chamberlain his servants.' If Shakespeare's company could at any time muster enough boys for public performances, we have no reason to doubt that it could have done so from the start. Thus the suggestion that the roles of the fairies were intended to be taken by children of the hypothetical noble house seems purely whimsical. The stage directions of the first edition, which was probably printed from Shakspeare's manuscript, show no essential differences from those in his other plays; a direction such as 'Enter a Fairie at one doore, and Robin goodfellow at another' (II.10) suggest that he had in mind the structure of the public theatres. Furthermore, although noble weddings in Shakespeare's time were sometimes graced with formal entertainments, usually of the nature of a masque, the first play certainly known to have been written for such an occasion is Samuel Daniel's Hymen's Triumph. This was performed in 1614, some twenty years after the composition of Midsummer Night's Dream. By this time the tradition of courtly entertainmnets had developed greatly; and Hymen's Triump does not appear to have been played in a public theatre.
(187)
This is a worthwhile reminder that inferences that seem plausible are not necessarily so.
January 24, 2025
Wonderful Shakespeare bio, but the fact that lingers most in my mind a few weeks after reading it is that Shakespeare's father's first entry into the historical record is as the owner of an illegal dungheap
November 2, 2008
This extremely well researched book collects all of the available documentary evidence regarding Shakespeare and his associates into one compact life. As a biography it does not give a clear driving narration of the poet's life, but rather tries to tell his story through the evidence that is left to us. He does a great job debunking myths and citing sources. As a "story" of Shakespeare's life, this is not the first volume I would turn to, but rather would look at a biography in one of the "collect works" type volumes.
August 9, 2018
Outstanding book. Cites an extraordinary number of biographies and critical essays, infers and interprets conservatively from (mostly) primary sources, and, with strict discipline in service of his laser-thin purpose, offers essentially no literary criticism. He leaves many questions unanswered, and justly so. The facsimiles are interesting, though sometimes oddly placed on the page, i.e. distant from relevant passage in main text. The humor is dry and not at all distracting.
November 5, 2024
Recommended to me by Stanley Wells, this book delivers precisely on its' title, offering a compact documentary for the life of William Shakespeare. The history details are impressive.
March 26, 2013
There are very few established facts about Shakespeare's life. Because of that most biographers of Shakespeare are forced to speculate. This 'documentary life' tries to avoid the pitfalls of speculation, and builds a life around what few fact we have about the man and the times. It is, perhaps, the best source book for what we do know about the greatest poet and playwright of the English language.
October 13, 2011
I think it is still the best Shakespeare bio out there.
October 20, 2011
Until I read "Will in the World," I had long believed this to be the best of all Shakespearian biographies, and it still has worlds to offer. Just don't limit yourself to it as a single source!
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews