Shakespeare's Research

Critic Esther Jackson suggests that: “It seems clear that an important aspect of Shakespeare's dramatic form was its dependence upon a kind of iconographical system borrowed in part from Renaissance painting, sculpture, literature, liturgy, and music. This symbolic fabric-both religious and pagan in its sources-became increasingly evident in Shakespeare's later plays: in the romances as well as in the tragedies. The result of its particular use in King Lear is that many situations are not given rational explication of the kind established by Greek tragedy; on the contrary, Shakespeare, like Wagner and the contemporary writers used the method of music and the plastic arts in giving major realities figuration” (Jackson 27).  I came across this discussion of the language in King Lear and find it to express my opinion on Shakespeare utilizing or as some critics may label it “plagarizing” from the sources listed below.  

Here’s a brief overview of potential sources that most scholars repeated in my research:

1. Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia Regum Brittaniae (c. 1135)

A history of the Kings of Britain to the date, this text is considered a fairly accurate account and most likely would have been a text that influenced the following literature.  

2. John Higgin’s Mirour for Magistrates (15th c)

A collection of poetry focusing on the tragic ends of historical figures.  

3. Holinshed’s Chronicles of England, Scotland, and Ireland (c. 1577)

This collaborative text would have been the most current chronology of British history during Shakespeare’s time.  

4. Philip Sidney’s Arcadia (c. 1580’s)

It is possible that Shakespeare borrowed the sub-plot of Gloucester from this text.  

5. Edmund Spenser’s The Faerie Queene (c. 1590)

An epic poem, based off Monmouth’s work and the history of Britain.  

6. The anonymous play “The Chronicle History of King Leir” (1594)

Contemporary to Shakespeare, a play performed most likely at the Rose Theatre by a competing theatrical troupe.  
This list, while no doubt incomplete and possibly inaccurate, demonstrates to me the context in which playwrights created plays.  Working backwards chronologically several things become evident.  The first, that Shakespeare, like his peers, would have rewritten plays that were fiscally successful for a competing theatre.  The second, that popular literature and historical accounts of Britain were referenced as sources of inspiration.  This was not considered plagiarism, but flattery.  In the period rewriting “classics” was encouraged, after all it was the renaissance, and thus the rebirth of classical texts for contemporary audiences.  Finally, there is a clear history of the sources Shakespeare used citing one another, or rewriting their predecessors’ text.  Thus, Shakespeare was merely participating in this culture.  

Yes, Shakespeare seemingly used or copied directly from many of these sources.  However, as Esther Jackson points out in the citation I’ve quoted, the importance is that Shakespeare made the material entirely his own.  The language was his, the style was his, the performance itself was uniquely his.   Ultimately Shakespeare’s work, especially in this case, is about a historical figure.  One would then find it more “realistic” or at least more based in history by determining that Shakespeare took the time to read his contemporaries and predecessors materials on the subject.  The more material, the more potential there is to craft a play that the audiences will appreciate, not only because they may recognize a familiar subject, but also that there can be a fresh perspective of that subject.  

Works Cited

Jackson, Esther M. "The Grammar of Tragedy." Shakespeare Quaterly Winter 17.1 (1966): 25-40. Print.

Kahan, Jeffrey. King Lear: New Critical Essays. New York: Routledge, 2008. Print.

Shakespeare, William, and Jay L. Halio. The Tragedy of King Lear. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1992. Print.