I have, of course, read Boswell. And what I read in Boswell described a professional writer constantly struggling to get paid for his labors, often unsuccessfully. His contemporary Gibbon was stuck with producing one of the great works of the English language at the behest of a patron who, thank heaven, stayed with Gibbon despite his teasing "another damned thick, square, book - always scribble, scribble, scribble, eh, Mr. Gibbon?" Would you go back to that system? We don't have many patrons these days...
The best insight we have into Shakespeare's personality is his works. I think he genuinely enjoyed the stage and show business - "All the world's a stage" is not just a remarkably apt metaphor for the human consition, but for Shakespeare's mental world as well.
He wrote for the joy of making his words come to life on that stage. If he'd made a million gold guineas for the Comedy of Errors he'd still have written The Tempest just to see it played.
And what I read in Boswell described a professional writer constantly struggling to get paid for his labors, often unsuccessfully.
I agree - but I do not see a man who writes merely for remuneration.
Would you go back to that system? We don't have many patrons these days...
The current system has produced a ton of embarrassingly unreadable garbage - a guaranteed press run of 1 million copies for Hillary Clinton's memoirs?
Patronage by publishing house isn't any nobler than patronage by noble.
I'll say it again: