Olivia, Sarah, Ally and Guy

From Hermia to Heath Ledger: Intertextuality in Shakespeare’s works 

Paragraph 1 – Intro

It’s no secret that Hollywood loves the Bard. Intertextual links and adaptation of the beloved Shakespeare’s plays have been fan favourites over the past few decades – She’s The Man (which takes influence from Twelfth Night), The Lion King (Hamlet) and finally who can forget the cult classic 10 Things I Hate About You (a 1999 re-imagining of Shakepeare’s The Taming of the Shrew). 

However, this idea of intertextuality and influence in drama is not a new concept, as Janet Clare rigorously explores in her book Stage Traffic. Clare discusses the idea of a “Shake-scene” (1), placing the playwright within a network of his contemporaries, linking “verbal echoes” not only to “localised connections or specific borrowings” (19), but textual interweaving connections. Clare categorises Shakespeare’s various modes of intertextuality in three veins; rivalry, re-shaping “malleable material” (19) and multiple interactivity. From this list, it is clear that William Shakespeare was a master of intertextuality, crafting a world in which his characters never truly end with the shutting of their playscript. There is somewhat of a dialogue between plays, and a creative use of intertextuality highlights this authorial method.

In this blog post, we will analyse the show business of Shakespeare’s intertextuality. How does the theatrical context add to our understanding of intertextuality? Does performance space matter? Who were Shakespeare’s sources of influence, both inspiration and intertextual-wise? 

Paragraph 2 – Set the scene of Shakespere’s competitors/contemporaries/sources/crazes for a particular genre at the time. Maybe summarise Clare’s main examples or extend hers for one of your own example(s). 

Shakespeare was not the only writer of his time experimenting with genre raising questions in regards to authenticity. For example, the relationship of John Lyly’s Galatea with Shakespeare’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream is irrefutable. Pastoral elements and a forest setting are key to both narratives, as well as the idea of forbidden love (a woman falling in love with another woman resulting in a hetronormative outcome in Lyly’s play, a love potion resulting in Titania’s infatuation with the donkey-headed Bottom in Shakespare’s play). As Clare argues that Lyly’s comedies are notable for their ‘interweaving and juxtaposing of diverse dramatic material, notably the combination of mythological, supernatural, and courtly elements’. This is evident in A Midsummer Night’s Dream as Shakespeare incorporates stories and themes from Greek mythology, whilst employing supernatural elements to a plot centred around love and marriage. 

The two contemporaries are both responsible for their intertwining of ‘four narrative lines’ and a shift from ‘local’ to ‘mythological’. The writers’ emphasis on external space reinforces the anxieties of their audiences towards the supernatural.

Paragraph 3 – What are some shared themes? Does the performance space matter?

Do other writers tend to specialise in one genre, or do they seem to be generalists like Shakespeare? 

While Shakespeare did seem to frequently borrow themes, ideas and even plot points from his contemporaries it could be suggested that all the writers of the time were borrowing from the current events playing out around them. Similarities abound between Marlowe’s The Jew of Malta and Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice written roughly 10 years later. But both come out of what Clare describes as ‘a climate of anti-semitism’ partially stoked by the alleged treason of a royal Jewish physician supposedly ‘having assented to take the Queen’s life by poisoning, upon a reward promised to him of 50,000 crowns’. The physician was charged and executed on little tangible evidence. This created an audience in London for plays that vilified Jews and consequently Marlowe and Shakespeare both supplied them. 

Paragraph 4 – Conclusion

Intertextuality was bred through the educational institutions in place at the time, in which Shakspeare was writing. The humanist idea in place was that a student must first learn from the ‘past masters’ who have preceded them. Some critics have been accused of making almost arbitrary selections when attempting to identify intertextuality, due to the arguable limitless scope of examples of intertextuality amongst texts within the period. However, Janet Clare argues that we do Shakespeare an effective disservice by simply viewing his plays in relation to others written previously. She believes that we must branch out, and remember that he is one part of an enormous network of plays and playwrights. Although he may have been influenced in some ways, she believes that to be of secondary relevance. 

Works Cited 
Clare, Janet. Shakespeare’s Stage Traffic: Imitation, Borrowing and Competition in Renaissance Theatre.  Cambridge UP, 2014

In regards to Shakespeare’s collaboration there are two key strands which can be focused on. Firstly is Shakespeare’s immediate and direct collaborator, The Chamberlain’s Men acting company which consists of 8-12 senior members and beneath these 2-4 apprentice boys. Not only does the acting troupe possess a financial hold over performances through shares but their role itself, by interpreting Shakespeare’s written word in their performances is open to be viewed as collaborative.

Beyond this though is the social network of playwrights and authors writing both at the same time as Shakespeare but also in the past. Some of Shakespeare’s main competitors and potentially collaborators included Christopher Marlowe, Ben Jonson and John Lyly.

Clare references how “Shakespeare’s plays are not separable from other plays in circulation” (Clare, 18), going on to suggest that writings should be viewed “on a circularity rather than linearity” spectrum as they can influence and affect one another at any point in time (18). Not only is this a concept supported by Seneca’s bee theory, which suggests within our works people should “sift whatever we have gathered from a varied course of reading” and apply it but can also be seen through both Shakespeare’s works and his competitors alike (Seneca 277, 278, 279). 

There is a distinction between intertextuality and influence here though as Shakespeare responds with intertextuality while the example of his competitor is influenced. 

Shakespeare, for example, responds to John Lyly’s Galatea by adopting its formula of a “non-naturalistic comed[y], with […] mythological and human characters”  within A Midsummer Nights Dream (123). From their shared woodland setting to their inclusion of Gods within their plots there are clear parallels which can be drawn between the two texts, demonstrating one text’s shaping by another. Alternatively though texts can instead influence one another, with Shakespeare in this different instance acting as a source of inspiration for writers as John Webster includes Shakespeare in his preface to The White Devil 1612 printed by Nicholas Okes for Thomas Archer. Webster regards that  “lastly (without wrong last to be named) the right happy and copious industry of M. Shake-speare, M. Decker,& M. Heywood, wishing what I write may be read by their light:” (Webster, Folger Shakespeare Library), demonstrating Shakespeare’s influence and his role as a source of inspiration but not his work being used intertextually. That is not to suggest that these are the only examples of this though as influence and intertextuality in a broad range of instances.  

It appears that the key writers featured in Clare’s essays were potentially more prone to specialising in a specific genre – Marlowe focused a lot on tragedy, whilst Lyly and Jonson wrote mostly comedy. 

Reference

Clare, Janet. Shakespeare’s Stage Traffic: Imitation, Borrowing and Competition in Renaissance Theatre (CUP, 2014) pp. 18

Seneca the younger, Epistles vol 2, transl. Gummere (Loeb: 1920) pp. 277-279

Webster, John. “The White Devil: John Webster refers to Shakespeare by name in his dedication (1612).” Folger Shakespeare Library, Shakespeare Documented, May 25th 2017, https://shakespearedocumented.folger.edu/exhibition/document/white-devil-john-webster-refers-shakespeare-name-his-dedication. Accessed 15 Oct. 2019

Abi Dickson, Ellie Simmonite, Soso Ayika, Sophie Hamilton, Raveena Mehta, Leanne Francis

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

Gossip Wench here, your one and only source into the scandalous lives of the Thespian elite. An anonymous source has told me that Will Shakespeare might not be as genius as we all thought he was…

Thought his pastoral, mythological, wit-filled plays were all his own ideas? Our source says think again. All we’re saying is maybe buy a ticket for Lyly’s Galatea before you fight for a place in Will’s entourage. #ad 

You didn’t hear it from us, but this actor trying to be a playwright seems pretty sad…maybe you just weren’t cut out for the stage? Don’t get me wrong, he’s getting pretty popular. But

if you’re going to copy the framework of someone’s play, at least keep the chastity agenda: it’s not classy having fulfilled desires as the solution of your plot. Elizabeth wouldn’t approve of this trashiness taking over the stage, and neither do we… take a cold shower, Slagspeare.

We all wrote our book reports on Pyramus and Thisbe in middle school, and we’re kind of over it now. Using an ass instead of a stag sums up the difference between Ovid and our pal Will: stop trying to make Metamorphoses for the common people happen…it’s not going to happen. 

I don’t know about you gossipers but we’re off to the Globe tonight to see what all the fuss is about. It’s not all doom and gloom though, Drama Boy, as your fans say you’ve got a way with words; let’s see if it’s enough!

Midsummer Night’s Dream? Or Midsummer Night’s Scheme…

xoxo, Gossip Wench. 

Charlotte Slinger, Holly Mawdsley, Pearl Andrews-Horrigan, Phoebe Hearst.

 

 

 

 

 

I had lately travelled to the city of London, and in my time there did experience going to one of the playhouses that are of such fashion and popularity amongst many in the city. This day that I crossed the river to attend those playhouses is here recounted for any who wish to walk a similar course in their own travels. 

But before I can make descriptions of those busy playhouses, it would be ill of me not to make mention of my troubles in getting to them. I was instructed by a friend before my arrival to travel by carriage where possible but, finding the roads packed with carriages at a standstill, and being told by the proprietor of my lodgings that these were stuffed with others travelling towards the playhouses, I elected to travel by water-taxi to the opposite bank of the river. This is most recommended, for to travel on foot takes one through the stink and bustle of the London Bridge, on which is a great deal of filth, and above which is an indescribable adornment, best avoided.

I first travelled to the Rose amphitheatre, having been told of a performance of Doctor Faustus was occurring that afternoon. It is the oddest building. Like the other open-air playhouses on this south bank, it seems modelled after it’s neighbours, the bearpit and other animal-baiting houses: galleries looking down as if we are to see the actors tear one another to shreds. I have even heard that it was built without a stage so that players could perform one day, and beasts fight one another the next. However, upon my late arrival, I found the actors already retreating under the weight of hisses and heckles from the crowd.

From here I travelled to the Globe Theatre, where the tragedy of King Lear was being enacted. This was a far more agreeable experience, as the placement of my seating ensured that raucous activity in the yard down below could be avoided. My cushioned chair meant my status could be projected, and showcased alongside the acting. However, the ghastly acoustics proved tiresome, as the lengthy play needed my undivided attention. I was not surprised at the vocal responses of the audience, as I too was compelled to comment on the players’ abilities to act so convincingly onstage. Benefit came from the actors delivering their speech up toward my seating and not toward the lowly crowd below. The mere cast of fifteen people proved an intimate performance, and the spectacle of bloodshed at Caesar’s death was a most enthralling yet disturbing experience. I could smell the metallic syrup in the air, as this side of the river was a dark and dangerous place. This proved to be a fanciful twist of fate for the protagonist, as the masses were particularly engrossed in his performance. Prior to this, I saw the very same player in Hamlet, and whilst being completely different in plot, his performance was almost identical. Perhaps the playwright forgot his originality. Yet the tense atmosphere dominated the whole performance, which I see as the best sign of a successful play. All in all a most thrilling evening of theatre.

By Ross, Felix, Francesca and Rebecca.

What can historical documents like Philip Henslowe’s diary tell us about the experience of 

(a) performing

Actors’ experience of performing in early modern plays is in some ways incomparable to the experience of actors today. With senior actors forming theatre companies and performing  exclusively for this company – which they had a financial interest in, receiving shares of the profits from each play – the instability of freelance actors today was only experienced by young or unestablished actors hired only for walk-on parts in the final few days before performances. This company structure meant that actors were always working with the same people, and likely playing the same parts/types of parts due to typecasting  – Shakespeare often did not even name his characters, instead using their generic type, such as ‘Fool’, as their identifier in speech prefixes – with Stern explaining that modern editors “discover” the characters’ names for publication today, as modern readers have novelistic expectations (65). Stern also suggests that type casting lead to “Less need for any actor to work on issues of characterisation” (65), as actors essentially played themselves.       

Actors – or at least those who weren’t sharers in the company – were also trusted less, and therefore only given cue scripts with their lines and cue lines, and did not receive a full playtext. This was to ensure that were unable to sell the script to publishers for their own profit, rather than that of the company.   This also meant, however, that the actors did not know the full plot of the play before performances,which inevitably affected their performances. The celebrated style of acting in the early modern period was therefore very different to that which wins awards today, with actors focussing purely on the emotions displayed within their lines – for example, through the dialogue switching from prose to verse.  This is what actors would focus on in sessions with their instructors – more senior actors or in the case of the most established actors, such as Richard Burbage, the playwright himself who help them – when practicing their parts. This process of instruction, though, was often dictatorial – the focus was on showing the emotions, not discussing or understanding them. As Stern’s Stage Traffic states, it was in this way that “‘Correct’ action and gestures continued to be taught for the next two centuries”[p.83], and the ’passions’ these evoked were thus passed on & repeated to become characteristic of that part.

Early modern rehearsal practices, then, were very different to those of today.  There were no extensive group rehearsals – only one before performance night at a push.  It is almost unimaginable that this would be the cas today, except for specifically billed ‘24 hour plays’.

This was evidently in contrast to the way plays are treated in contemporary production companies today, where they are taken on tour for months and intensely rehearsed in a group dynamic.

(b) being in the audience of an early modern play? 

The theatre today is considered as a high-brow, formal institution, which differs from early modern theatre. As we can see from Philip Henslow’s diary, the theatre was cheap, so accessible to the lower classes. It was mass-produced entertainment, so less exclusive. There was the option to stand for the whole show, which would have been cheaper. Theatre was the main source of entertainment, so spectators would expect lots of variety and different plays everyday. Philip Henslow’s diary shows this, as everyday different plays were shown. There was also less etiquette in the theatre. For example, audience members would leave once the main character died, even if the play wasn’t over

Philip Henslowe’s Diary 

This historical document belonged to the owner/founder of the Rose Theatre in early modern London, and lists the dates, frequency and profits of the plays shown there. It also includes lists of props and costumes owned by theatre, and records of payments to actors and writers. This is valuable in not only showing the development of acting as an official/professional form of income, but also suggests that other contributors to the theatre experience existed offstage such as costume design, which was most likely done by women at the time.

(c) What strikes you as the most unusual aspect of the theatre from this period? 

The most unusual aspect of the theater from this period is the lack of full rehearsals prior to performing the play. This would have resulted in a performance that felt disjointed in comparison to the way we experience live theater today. The lack of full rehearsals would also have resulted in a play that wasn’t as cohesive as plays today – the play would feel, to a modern audience, more like a series of separate people reading parts.  

Phoebe, Holly, El, Charlotte, Pearl