We all know that Shakespeare’s plays thrilled the crowds, but can we give him the sole credit for this?

It’s always a shame when you find out that your idol is a fake and with a quick examination Clare’s ideals we will soon discover whether this really is the case…

His Contemporaries and their influence…

It is not unfair to say that Shakespeare was one of many playwrights creating content in the late 1500s and early 1600s, and that there are many similarities in his plays, with his contemporaries. This is something he knowingly points out in having Polonius list the various genres of the age, in Hamlet. In fact, Clare points out a number of these similariteis in her chapter – as seen with the links to Lyly and Marlowe (144). No matter what there genre there always seems to be a link here or a similarity there with Shakespeare. But does this matter when it comes to our enjoyment of his art? Yes, there does seem to be some structural templates that Shakespeare adheres, which are inline with the line of argument Clare concerning intertextuality. Her approach uses the Taming of the Shrew and The Comedy of Errors as examples of common stock comedies, both of which a great plays – the fact that they have layers of intertextually does removes Shakespeare’s originality as a playwright but places them deeper within the genre.

His Business…

Furthermore, Clare points out that Shakespeare was “writing for actors” which makes some claim that Shakespeare was not forming the characters from his imagination (114), but from both the stock characters of the period – the clown, the hero etc – and from the actual men in his company. How can we see this as a negative, is this not just a clever business plan which has allowed for us as a modern day audience to continue to enjoy his theatre? The layman on the street would have heard of Shakespeare, but would not have many of his contemporaries. Furthermore, the fact is that playwrights’ needed licensing from the state to be able to perform, which enabled censorship and limited Shakespeare’s creative freedom yet he still managed to appear on top proves that this use of intertextuality to refine your art into its most accessible/ enjoyable/profitable form is not only a natural part of the ‘artist’, but a necessary one too.

Clare’s insight into how Shakespeare worked is one that truly helps us understand him not only as a linguistic genius, but also as a savvy businessman also. Thus showing that intertextuality makes Shakespeare more endearing, not less…

Helena, Helena, Amy, Louis and Ruairidh