When I originally wrote that he was not quite Lloyd Webber I was purely
looking for a comparison for financial success. I think this point about
Shakespeare's political acumen is more interesting: as you say, he never
ended up in the Tower, or otherwise imprisoned, unlike I believe the
majority of his contemporary dramatists. Nor did he suffer for the use of
Richard II in the abortive Essex rebellion. And while he lodged with
Huguenots and a daughter married Stratford's leading Puritan he owned the
Jesuit priests' bolt-hole in Blackfriars and it was cousin Catesby was it
not who was prominent among the gunpowder plotters. It suggests a
personality of extreme adaptability, that could navigate the social,
political and religious opposites as skilfully as he could bring together
disparate material and motives for writing in his work.
An ambiguous polymorph. An onlooker.
david
----- Original Message -----
From: <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2001 12:10 AM
Subject: Re: Shakespeare and Christianity.
> >Shakespeare was an opportunistic writer, whose intellectual motto could
be
> >the words he gives Romeo for Juliet:
> >
> >'Who would not adventure for such merchandise?'
>
> Shakespeare's Professional Life is quite interesting on this; Shakespeare
> was a ruthlessly pragmatic businessman and wrote with great political
> acumen, stepping through the political minefields of his day. He never
> ended up in the Tower like Ben Johnson. Though you know, he made most of
> his money out of lucerne.
>
> He wasn't like Lloyd-Webber, because he was much smarter: smart enough to
> know, for example, that the money and the popularity were a means to an
> end, and not an end in themselves. But in a way, it's quite fair to say
> that he was the Lloyd Webber of his day, as long as it doesn't lead to
> the idea that Lloyd Webber is the Shakespeare of _our_ day.
>
> Best
>
> Alison
>
|