On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, Paul Stenquist wrote: > Shakespeare was certainly not considered a hack by the respected > critics of his day
You're absolutely right, especially as can be seen in the way that his contemporaries banded together to make sure his work was published after his death. By suggesting 'hack' _might_ be an allowable term I was thinking more in terms of the job of being a playwright and actor were pretty much disparaged in Elizabethan times. My intention was merely closing off one avenue of misunderstanding of his words that William Robb might suggest I made :-) I don't think he was a hack. I definitely don't think he was second-rate. Chris (On topic: I've got some pictures of The Globe taken on an LX somewhere!)
