Juarez

Megan Juarez

Dr. Kahan

ENG 460

12 December 2013

Shakespeare: An Original or a Thief?

T.S. Elliot declared, “immature poets imitate; mature poets steal” (Julius). William

Shakespeare can be considered amongst the mature writers who steal. Despite the widely

conceived notion that William Shakespeare is an original, it can be proven that he is not. To

be an original is to be completely independent, fresh and innovative. An original would not

reflect any other influences because that original is solely based off of itself. When focusing

on Shakespeare’s works, it can be recognized how many aspects of his plays are influenced

by others. Shakespeare was subjected to major influences of the Renaissance. During this

time, Greek and Roman culture was one of the most popular topics for the public. The

Renaissance also discovered the idea of Humanism, or the possibilities of man. Aside from

the trends and concepts of the time, his contemporaries, such as Thomas Kyd and Geoffrey

Chaucer, also influenced Shakespeare. While borrowing from others, Shakespeare also

borrowed from himself. His use of plot devices, themes, and characters reoccur through out

his works. By borrowing from others and himself, Shakespeare makes himself less of an

original. As long as a part of his work belongs to someone else, it cannot be claimed as

original because it is not wholly independent. Shakespeare’s reputation, however, claims he

is an original because his works reflect such talent and genius. Shakespeare is not an original

because his works reflect borrowings from outside sources as well as from himself, but

1

Juarez

despite this fact, he can still be considered talented because borrowing is ultimately

inevitable.

According to the Dictionary, to be original is to be new and fresh. Someone who is

original is believed to be independent and inventive. They are creative in an “individual

manner” and the “first and authentic example” (Morehead 478). To believe William

Shakespeare is original is to believe that his works are based completely off of his own new

ideas and approaches. This assumption suggests that he solely created the plots in each of his

plays, with no knowledge or influence of his contemporaries. His themes would be

considered as new understandings of human nature that had not occurred to anyone before, as

though the ideas of revenge and forgiveness were never touched on. His characters would

represent no one his audience could recognize because they would have unfamiliar

personalities and lives that they had never seen before. Being subjected into the world of the

Renaissance, Shakespeare was introduced to his contemporaries such as Kyd and Marlowe

and undoubtedly, considered he was educated, was aware of previous major writers such as

Geoffrey Chaucer. It is impossible that Shakespeare could have completely excluded all that

was familiar to not only him but to his audience to produce his own original play. Outside

influences on his works are inevitable, thus he cannot be considered an original. In an upset

article, Thomas Greene identified Shakespeare as “an upstart crow” who “‘beautified

[himself] with our feathers’, he was arrogant enough to ‘suppose that he is as well able to

bombast out a blank verse as the best of [his contemporaries]" (Julius). It was obvious that

Shakespeare borrowed from outside sources. Fortunately for Shakespeare, originality was

less valued during the Renaissance because entertainment was more important. Despite those

who condemned Shakespeare’s plagiarism, he still succeeded in popularity. By providing

2

Juarez

what is familiar to the audience, they are able to enjoy the play as entertainment. Shakespeare

incorporated the popular topics of the Renaissance such as Greek and Roman culture and the

new concept of Humanism so that his audience can relate to his plays.

There are many different influences that affected Shakespeare during the age of the

Renaissance. In his novel, Shakespeare’s World and Work, John F. Andrews addresses how

during the Renaissance, Greek and Roman culture became extremely popular (Andrews 12).

The people of the Renaissance admired how the Greeks and Romans governed and because

this history was brought to light it inspired Shakespeare to incorporate these ideas in his own

works. Julius Caesar, for example, is based upon the history of a Roman official named

Julius Caesar. Shakespeare developed this story into a tragedy by creating Julius Caesar to be

an arrogant man and it is this quality that persuades his friends to murder Caesar. They are

afraid he will become a tyrant and feel it is the best decision for their society as a whole.

Shakespeare may have modified this play in order to enhance character development and

plot, however, the main story and conflict is based off of history. Therefore, Shakespeare did

borrow from not a specific person but from historical events. Shakespeare cannot be

recognized for being original when concerning this specific work, Julius Caesar, because he

did not invent the basic story himself. He created a story around historical facts supporting

the notion that he did not independently create the work, but depended on an outside source

to use as a plot. He uses this same technique in The Tragedy of Coriolanus. Scholar Michelle

Lee believes that the story of the legendary Roman leader, Caius Marcius Coriolanus,

“Shakespeare likely knew through a 1579 translation by Sir Thomas North.” (Lee).

Shakespeare enjoys writing about a war hero. He retells Coriolanus’ story to not only express

his accomplishments in battle but how his arrogance and despise for the lower classes

3

Juarez

prohibits his position in the Counsel. Although it is up to Shakespeare as the writer to

provide character development and movement of the plot, the story upon which the play is

based on is borrowed. Again, Shakespeare being known as an original cannot be proven. The

Tragedy of Coriolanus is influenced by Roman culture and because this is so it is not an

original work. These plays based off of Roman and Greek culture, such as The Tragedy of

Julius Caesar and The Tragedy of Coriolanus, were still successful for Shakespeare because

he presented something to the audience that they wanted. The popularity of this topic is why

Shakespeare was inspired to use it.

The history of Greek and Roman culture also prompted Shakespeare to relive

England’s own history. One of his major works includes The Life of Henry the Fifth, the final

work of the tetralogy following after The First Part of Henry the Fourth and The Second Part

of Henry the Fourth. Henry V was a wild and careless prince, but when he becomes King he

straightens out to be a mature man. Shakespeare adds more dynamics to his character so the

audience can feel a personal connection with him. Although Henry V has to be strong and

dependable for his country, he wishes his life did not lead him to this position. He even

wishes to have the life of a slave where he assumes he “Can sleep so soundly” (IV.i.268).

Shakespeare reveals to the audience how Henry V feels pressured by the expectations of

being a King. He borrows the history of Henry V and adds his own story around the facts to

produce an entertaining play. Shakespeare cannot take sole ownership of plays such as this

because he did not invent the story solely on his own. Shakespeare leaned on history to not

only relive it but to create his own story based upon its truths. This was a smart approach

toward his audience because they were not expecting originality, but entertainment. As much

as he looked toward the past, he also focused on the ideas of his present time.

4

Juarez

The age of the Renaissance brought about the new concept of Humanism. Humanism

focuses and emphasizes on mans potential (Andrews 23). This encouraged Shakespeare to

explore human nature and the depths of human emotions. The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of

Denmark heavily supports this idea of the possibilities of man. The main protagonist,

Hamlet, is an extremely complex character. He is pressured with the knowledge that his own

uncle killed his father to gain the thrown. To add to his success, his uncle marries Hamlet’s

mother shortly after his father’s death. While plotting and acting out his plan for revenge,

Hamlet steps upon other obstacles that all complicate his responsibilities even more. As a

young man, these responsibilities lay heavily on him and he goes into deep thought about

what a man’s position in life is. He reflects on mankind and says:

What [a] piece of work is a

man, how noble in reason, how infinite in faculties, in

form and moving, how express and admirable in

action, how like an angel in apprehension, how like a

god! The beauty of the world; (II.ii.303-307).

Man has so much potential if he could only realize it. It is a matter of questioning how far

will man go to discover his possibilities. The important question for Hamlet is how can he

live up to this idea. In contrast, The Tragedy of Macbeth insinuates how a man can allow

himself to be misled toward his potential. Macbeth attempted to take hold of his fate when

the witches prophesied his becoming King. After taking matters into his own hands and

killing the King himself, with the help of his wife, his guilt catches up with him. Through

Macbeth, Shakespeare proves how man should not take advantage of his potential. He uses

Macbeth’s emotions to reveal how his conscience gets the best of him. This concept of

5

Juarez

humanism greatly influences Shakespeare’s plays, such as The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of

Denmark and The Tragedy of Macbeth. Without this focus on the depths of man,

Shakespeare may not have been able to develop these major characters as well as he did.

Shakespeare borrowed this concept and applied it to his works therefore he cannot be

considered original. The only way his audience could connect or relate with his characters

was by humanizing them, which is what Shakespeare does. He carries out this idea of

Humanism to ultimately express to the audience the potential of his characters but also of

themselves. Not only was Shakespeare influenced by the concepts of his society, but by his

contemporaries who were also making an impact on the world of theater.

In the midst of the competition in the theater scene, one of the masterpieces of the

Elizabethan age included Thomas Kyd’s The Spanish Tragedy. The play, revolving around

the theme of revenge, was wildly popular. Due to its great reputation, it was obvious to some

how Shakespeare’s The Tragedy of Titus Andronicus was extremely similar. In his critical

essay from 1768, Edward Capell insisted that Shakespeare created The Tragedy of Titus

Andronicus seeking a large profit. After witnessing what success Kyd achieved with The

Spanish Tragedy, Shakespeare must have felt encouraged to do the same. Capell feels that

Shakespeare, “fell in with the current, and gave his sorry auditors a piece to their tooth in this

contested playoff Titus Andronicus; which as it came out at the same with…The Spanish

Tragedy...is most exactly like them in almost every particular” (Scott 615). What stands out

as strangely similar between the two plays is the personification of Revenge. In The Spanish

Tragedy, Revenge, a character, pairs himself with Andrea, who was killed and seeks

redemption from Andrea’s murderer. Kyd takes the theme of revenge and personifies it by

turning it into a specific character. In Titus Andronicus, Shakespeare borrows not only this

6

Juarez

theme but borrows how Kyd personifies this theme in a character. The play itself is driven by

revenge. Tamora, Queen of the Goths, is seeking revenge on Titus Andronicus for sacrificing

her eldest son. She has her sons rape Titus’ daughter, Lavinia, and they cut off her hands and

tongue so she cannot reveal who did the awful deed. Tamora was trying to shame Titus’

family because he had taken away a part of her family. Later on in the play, Tamora and her

sons disguise themselves when asking Titus to help postpone the attack on Rome. While her

sons are disguised as ‘Rape’ and ‘Murder,’ Tamora disguises herself as ‘Revenge.’

Shakespeare carries out the theme of Revenge in The Tragedy of Titus Andronicus exactly

how Kyd portrays it in The Spanish Tragedy. This proves how Shakespeare did in fact

borrow. By borrowing this technique of Kyd’s, this play of Shakespeare’s cannot be

considered an original. In addition to his contemporaries, those who came before the

Renaissance era also influenced Shakespeare.

A major writer from the Middle Ages that had an impact on Shakespeare’s work is

Geoffrey Chaucer. Geoffrey Chaucer expressed the idea of Courtly Love and Chivalry.

Within Courtly Love, the woman is usually superior and the man has to win her affection by

serving her. It encourages more internal emotion than external. This idea of Courtly Love is

seen in Shakespeare’s Much Ado About Nothing. In his article from 1968, “Courtly Love in

Shakespeare's Romantic Comedies,” William Russell, “finds that comic uses of courtly love

themes adds romantic texture” (Roberts 42). Claudio, a young lord of Florence, falls in love

with the governor’s daughter. He first admires her from afar because he wants to be

respectful. He admits to his confidants, however, “I would scarce trust myself, thought I

had/sworn the contrary, if Hero would be my wife” (I.i.195-196). Due to his shyness,

Claudio and his friend Benedick plot how Claudio can confess his love to Hero. Shakespeare

7

Juarez

borrows the idea of Courtly Love from Geoffrey Chaucer to illustrate the sweetness and

naivety of Claudio’s love for Hero. Along with Courtly Love, Shakespeare also touches on

Chaucer’s Code of Chivalry. This code suggests that a man, or a knight, must respect not

only his love but his society as well. He must be ready to protect the weak. He maintains

courage and honor but also has courtesy. In The Tragedy of Troilus and Cressida, Troilus

demonstrates Chivalry toward Cressida. In his critical essay from 1896, Frederick S. Boas

suggests, “But even as a satire of chivalry, Troilus and Cressida overshoots the mark. The

Fuedal code of love and honor, artificial though it be, deserves better than to be made the butt

of savage scorn” (Scott 341). Although Troilus and Cressida is a satirical play, the chivalry

Troilus shows toward Cressida is not satire. Troilus does not hide his feelings from Cressida

and expresses the upmost respect for her despite that she does not return these feelings to

him. Troilus professes:

I tell thee I am mad

In Cressida’s love; thou answer’st she is fair,

Pourest in the open ulcer of my heart

Her eyes, her hair, her check, her gait, her voice

…As true thou tell’st me, when I say I love her

But saying thus, in stead of oil and balm,

Thou lay’st in every gash that love hath given me

The knife that made it (I.i.51-63)

Shakespeare borrows the concept of Chivalry to better express the love and care Troilus has

for Cressida. He also uses Chaucer’s idea of Courtly love to illustrate the relationship

between Claudio and Hero in Much Ado About Nothing. By incorporating these themes of

8

Juarez

Chaucer’s, these works of Shakespeare cannot be considered original. Despite his own ideas

that he contributed to the play, a part of the play is not his. As long as Shakespeare is

borrowing other themes and techniques others have already used, then he is not living up to

the definition of ‘original.’

There were plenty of outside influences that Shakespeare borrowed from. He was

subjected to the Renaissance when Greek and Roman culture became very popular within

entertainment. To keep up with what the people wanted, Shakespeare used Greek and Roman

culture to be the basis in some of his plays. New concepts were also arising during the

Renaissance, such as Humanism. Shakespeare incorporated humanism into his characters to

help convey the concept of man and his potential. He even borrowed specific techniques

from his contemporaries, such as Kyd’s personification of Revenge in The Spanish Tragedy.

There was also the borrowing of Chaucer’s themes. Shakespeare uses the ideas of Courtly

Love and Chivalry to enhance the relationships between his characters. By incorporating

these outside influences into his works, then Shakespeare’s works are not solely completed

by him. To be original, his works would have had to be completely independent of his

societal influences. He would have had to introduce his own new ideas and approaches which

he does but with the help of others ideas. In addition to how he borrows from others,

Shakespeare also borrows from himself. Many patterns can be traced through out his works

and because there is repetition it takes away from their originality. Within his own works,

Shakespeare uses specific plot devices to move the plot forward. There are common themes

that reappear in different stories. His characters also reveal a similar pattern when focusing

on their developments and characteristics.

9

Juarez

One of the first patterns that can be recognized is Shakespeare’s use of specific plot

devices. Plot devices are used to move a play forward and although Shakespeare does this in

a variety of ways he also repeats his techniques. In a criticism on Much Ado About Nothing,

Lynn M. Zott noticed how the plot relies heavily on deception and the misunderstanding that

deception produces (Zott). What inspires the conflict in this specific play is a rumor the

villain Don John creates. When Claudio and Hero decide to marry, Don John plants a scheme

that makes Claudio believe Hero is being dishonest. Don John brings Claudio’s attention to

Hero’s window where he assumes he sees Hero with another man when in fact it was Hero’s

attendant. This plot device helps move the play forward because it is the deception that

upstarts the conflict. The rest of the play is dedicated to finding the truth. Shakespeare also

uses the plot device of deception in The Tragedy of Othello, the Moore of Venice. Othello is

fooled into thinking his new wife, Desdemona, is having an affair with one of his lieutenants.

Iago, who plays the villain, discreetly persuades Othello to believe his wife is being

dishonest. As his wife has a harmless conversation Cassio, the lieutenant, Iago leads Othello

to believe it is something more. He points out how, “She did deceive her father, marrying

you,/And when she seem’d to shake and fear your looks,/She lov’d them most” (III.iii.206-

208). Iago brings Othello’s attention to Desdemona’s reputation for deceiving others, which

is what persuades him to think she is deceiving him now. This deception encourages

Othello’s jealousy that ultimately leads the plot to Desdemona’s death. The use of deception

can also be seen in The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark. The ghost of Hamlet’s father

comes back to him to reveal his uncle’s deception. When Hamlet learns that it is his uncle

who put poison into King Hamlet’s ear, Hamlet embarks on his journey of revenge. It is

when Hamlet is aware of his uncle’s deception that the play is able to move along to the main

10

Juarez

conflict. Shakespeare commonly uses deception as a plot device to help build the conflict of

the play. He continually borrows this plot device from himself because he knows how to use

it well. Aside from deception, Shakespeare also reused other plot devices as well.

In his book, Time Mad Art in Shakespeare’s Romances, L.G. Salinger mentions,

"From the medievalist tradition, Shakespeare received the idea of families divided and

reunited, tribulation and wanderings of characters…” (Roberts 76). Shakespeare would use

the separation of families as a plot device to illustrate how the family comes back together.

Pericles, Prince of Tyre, illustrates how Pericles gets separated and reunited with his family.

Pericles is first separated from his wife, Thaisa. She dies while giving birth to their daughter

and although she is revived after being washed up on shore, her and Pericles are never

reunited. Pericles is also separated from his daughter, Marina. While he is away, she is taken

by pirates and sold to a brothel. Pericles spends the rest of his life wandering and in deep

sadness because of their separation. Fortunately, his wanderings lead him to his daughter.

Shakespeare uses the separation of families as a plot device to eventually reunite them. This

plot device can also be seen in The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet. Romeo and Juliet are two

star-crossed lovers who cannot be with one another because of their family feud. The

Capulet’s and Montague’s are against each other so Romeo and Juliet aim to keep their love

a secret. Eventually, they cannot live under the pressures of their family feud and both

commit suicide. It is when their lives have ended that the feuding families finally agree to

reason with one another. In the end, a kinsman to the prince declares, “A glooming peace this

morning with it brings…/For never was a story of more woe/Than this of Juliet and her

Romeo” (V.iii.304-310). It is the separation of these families that led Romeo and Juliet to

their deaths. Once realizing that, the Capulet’s and Montague’s set aside their differences so

11

Juarez

they can reunite. Shakespeare repeats this plot device because it contributes to the conflict of

the play. This separation of families also occurs in The Tragedy of Coriolanus when

Coriolanus is banished from Rome. After finding out Coriolanus has teamed with Rome’s

enemy as revenge, his mother sees it is time to intervene. She tells him, “I kneel before thee,

and unproperly/Show duty as mistaken all this while/Between child and parent” (V.ii.54-56).

His mother is the one who reunites their family to prevent an attack on Rome. Their

separation is what enables them to reunite and save Rome. If the families were not divided in

plays such as Pericles, Prince of Tyre or The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet, or The Tragedy of

Coriolanus, the conflict in them could not have been executed.

Shakespeare continuously borrows plot devices from himself. The role of deception

reappears through out his plays such as Much Ado About Nothing, The Tragedy of Othello,

and The Tragedy of Hamlet. Deception is what helps jumpstart the conflict of the play. When

wives are being wrongly judged, such as Hero and Desdemona, or others are getting away

with murder, such as Hamlet’s uncle, is when the play starts to move in motion. The

separation of families contributes to the resolution of the conflict. Families are reunited after

being lost from one another or losing their loved ones but ultimately find a way to reunite. As

well as these plot devices are working, his reuse of them makes Shakespeare less original. As

he keeps borrowing from himself, his techniques become repetitive and thus are not as fresh

and innovative as the definition of originality suggests. Shakespeare does not stop at plot

devices, however. He also borrows themes from himself in multiple plays.

One of the themes that reappears through out Shakespeare’s works is the theme of

forgiveness. He presents this theme in different conflicts and settings but it ultimately always

leads to the same resolution, two divided parties finding peace with one another. The theme

12

Juarez

of forgiveness is used in The Merchant of Venice when Antonio decides not to retaliate

against Shylock. Shylock sought the end of Antonio’s life because Antonio had insulted the

Jewish community. When Antonio’s lawyer saves him because of careful examination of the

trial, Antonio has the opportunity to take advantage of Shylock for threatening him. Instead,

however, he forgives Shylock. He bargains with Shylock and demands him to leave his

Jewish faith, which seems unfair for Shylock but Antonio saw this as a fair enough

compromise. Forgiveness is also seen in The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet. Despite their

arguments and disagreements, the families realize their feud was not worth the lives of

Romeo and Juliet. They too forgive one another as Antonio forgave Shylock, because it is

better to forgive and move on rather than to never forgive and be bitter. This theme of

forgiveness is also represented in The Tragedy of Macbeth, but in a different light. Lady

Macbeth feels guilty after killing King Duncan and she cannot hide this emotion while she

sleepwalks. She walks around the castle convinced there is still blood on her hands and she

demands:

Out, damn’d spot! out, I say! One-

two-why then ‘tis time to do’t. Hell is murky. Fie,

my lord, fie, a soldier, and afeard? What need we fear

who knows it, when none can call our pow’r to

accompt? Yet who would have thought the old man

to have had so much blood in him? (V.i.35-40).

Lady Macbeth cannot forgive herself because she knows what she has done was wrong. She

lets her guilty conscience get the best of her which is what leads to her death. Through his

theme of forgiveness, Shakespeare proves how important forgiveness is. In The Merchant of

13

Juarez

Venice, forgiveness makes a more peaceful ending. In The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet, it

ends a family feud. The Tragedy of Macbeth suggests that when one cannot forgive, they will

eventually destroy themselves somehow. Along with the theme of forgiveness, the theme of

pride and honor also reoccurs within Shakespeare’s plays.

Pride and honor was taken very seriously during the Renaissance and the time

building up to it. One must not shame themselves because they would shame their entire

family. This kind of shame occurs in The Tragedy of Titus Andronicus. Lavinia shames the

family when she is raped because she is no longer pure. Titus has a lot of pride in his family

and Lavinia’s rape ruins their reputation. To put an end to Lavinia’s misery and the shame

she brought to their family, Titus stabs and kills her. Titus declares, “Die, die, Lavinia, and

thy shame with thee,/And with thy shame thy father’s sorrow die!” (V.iii.46-47). Lavinia’s

life is a reminder of how she shamed her family’s name and because Titus has so much pride

in his family, he kills Lavinia to keep their honor. Someone who also has pride and honor not

only in his family but in himself as well is Coriolanus. Coriolanus is a war hero and takes

pride in all he has accomplished. Coriolanus wants to become a part of the counsel but has

trouble because the public is aware of his despise toward the lower classes. When trying to

persuade him to not give them a speech, his mother tells him, “let/Thy mother rather feel thy

pride than fear/Thy dangerous stoutness” (III.iii.125-127). She would rather suffer the

consequences of his stubborn pride than fear the consequences of it. His pride really gets the

best of him when he is banished from Rome and joins Rome’s enemy, Aufidius. Lily

Campbell points out in Shakespeare's Tragic Heroes: Slaves of Passion how, “Coriolanus'

fault is excessive pride, the most terrible of the medieval deadly sins” (Roberts 153). In The

Tragedy of Coriolanus and The Tragedy of Titus Andronicus, Shakespeare emphasizes on the

14

Juarez

lengths man will go to because of his pride. Titus killed his own daughter to bring honor back

to his family. Coriolanus turned against his own home because he let his pride get the best of

him. The theme of pride and honor is carried out through Shakespeare’s works to illustrate

how important it is to control it.

Shakespeare continuously borrowed themes from himself within his works. One of

those major themes is forgiveness, which Antonio expresses to Shylock when he decides not

to take revenge on him in The Merchant of Venice. The Montague’s and Capulet’s from The

Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet forgive each other after realizing their feud was not worth the

lives of their loved ones. Lady Macbeth expresses how lack of forgiveness destroyed her in

The Tragedy of Macbeth. Knowing her actions were wrong, she could not forgive herself and

her guilt caught up with her. The theme of pride and honor also stands out in Shakespeare’s

works. Characters such as Titus Andronicus demonstrated how far one would go to keep the

pride and honor in his family. Coriolanus was an example of what too much pride and honor

in oneself can lead to. These are a few of the themes that Shakespeare included in his works,

along with his reoccurring plot devices such as deception and the separation of families. In

addition to borrowing from not only outside influences from himself when concerning plot

devices and themes, Shakespeare also borrows character types. Although his characters

differentiate distinctly from one another, they have many similarities that reveal their basic

structure and development.

Between the power hungry men and the soft-spoken females, there are many

character traits that Shakespeare borrows from one play to another. Many of his protagonists,

for example, have a deep desire for power. There is Macbeth, who killed the King so he

could take the thrown. When the witches prophesied him becoming king, Macbeth acted

15

Juarez

upon a possibly unreliable fortune, but his want for power persuaded him to obtain it no

matter the cost. On his way to the Senate, Julius Caesar had many chances to escape his fate.

His wife, Calpurnia, begs him not to go because of a dream she had that foreshadowed his

death. He was even given a letter warning him about the conspirators but he ignored it. Julius

Caesar got caught up in his desire for power that he was too distracted to see the signs of his

death. Coriolanus built power through his hard work in the battlefield but still sought more

when he had the potential to be a part of the counsel. When he is banished from his home and

stripped of that opportunity, he uses his power to threaten where he came from. These

characters seem to always want more and their drive for power pushes them to go on further.

Lily Campbell states, "The depiction of the tragic fall of the Princes continued into the

renaissance, but instead of blaming fickle fortune, the playwrights stressed that the man's

punishment was due to his passions (Roberts 46). Shakespeare’s male characters often had a

passion for power and it is that passion that leads to their downfall. In contrast, Shakespeare

also introduces a character who does not want power to ultimately prove how the

responsibilities that come with power are overwhelming and perhaps not worth it. The Life of

Henry V expresses how Henry V has so much power but he would rather have nothing to do

with it. In a moment of truth, Henry V realizes how someone such as a slave actually has an

easier life. Although slaves may live easier lives, it is because, “but in gross brain little

wots/What watch the King keeps to maintain peace,/Whose hours the peasant best

advantages” (IV.i.282-284). Through out his plays, Shakespeare illustrates those who seek

power and maintain it but acknowledges those with power to reveal the major responsibilities

that comes with it, such as in The Life of Henry V. Character traits such as the desire for

power repeatedly stand out in Shakespeare’s male characters. By continuously reusing traits

16

Juarez

such as the desire for power, this trait makes Shakespeare’s techniques less original. Ideas

such as this cannot remain fresh and innovative if they keep reappearing in different forms.

While Shakespeare continues character traits within his male characters, he also does so with

his female characters.

The women in Shakespeare’s plays differ from one another because some are soft

spoken and weak while others are controlling and strong. No matter which side these female

characters fall on, they are still wronged and suffer somehow in the end. A few weak

characters that stand out are Hero, from Much Ado About Nothing, Lavinia, from The

Tragedy of Titus Andronicus, and Desdemona, from The Tragedy of Othello, the Moore of

Venice. Hero’s role as a woman is very limited. She does not have very much say in

anything, even in the situations that involve her. It is for this reason that Hero is so easily

accused of being dishonest toward Claudio. Once Claudio believes he saw Hero with another

man, he calls off their wedding in an instant. Amidst the madness of discovering Don John’s

schemes, it takes Hero’s false death to make Claudio feel guilty for ever letting her go. The

woman barely speaks though out the play and the only time she makes a big statement is

when she pretends to have died of a “broken heart.” This kind of weak female is also shown

in Lavinia. However, Lavinia barely speaks because she physically cannot. After being raped

over her husband’s dead body, Lavinia’s hands and tongue are cut off. She is prohibited from

revealing the perpetrators vocally and by written hand. Her voice is not only taken away

physically but metaphorically. As a woman her opinion does not matter. It takes almost the

entire play for the criminals to be discovered. Once they are, Lavinia is killed by her own

father. Titus could not let her live and shame their family. He also had to put her out of her

misery considering she had her hands and tongue cut off. Lavinia’s harsh end is also similar

17

Juarez

to Desdemona’s. Desdemona was also wrongly accused of being unfaithful, like Hero. When

Othello confronts her, Desdemona does not beg for forgiveness or try to convince him that

she has been honest with him. Instead, she asks, “O, banish me, my lord, but kill me not!”

(V.ii.78). She knows her voice is not strong and rather than proving her innocence she begs

for her life. Characters such as Desdemona, Lavinia and Hero lack an authoritative voice

which is what leads to their sufferings. While Shakespeare presents female characters that are

weak such as these, he also presents strong female characters.

Shakespeare’s strong female characters are still just as wronged as his weak ones.

This can be proven through Tamora, from The Tragedy of Titus Andronicus, Lady Macbeth

from The Tragedy of Macbeth, and Volumnia from The Tragedy of Coriolanus. Tamora

sought revenge on Titus because he sacrificed her eldest son. She takes control of the

situation and almost succeeds. Tamora has her sons rape Titus’ daughter, thus putting shame

on their family. When Titus finally discovers her scheme, he kills her last two sons. If that

was not revenge enough, he cooks them into the dinner he feeds Tamora. He reveals this to

Tamora and says she is, “Eating the flesh that she herself hath bred./ ‘Tis true, ‘tis true,

witness my knives sharp point” (V.iii.62-63). Tamora had a strong female role and she is

hushed by her murderer, Titus. Lady Macbeth also dies after having showed her masculine

features. When Macbeth tells her he could be King, she wastes no time. She is the one who

convinces him to kill King Duncan so that he can take the throne. Lady Macbeth is very

manipulating and persuasive. She even wishes she was a man so that she could make up for

her husbands lack of masculinity and cries, “unsex me here” (I.v.41). Despite her strong

qualities, Lady Macbeth still dies in the end, supposedly from suicide, which really belittles

the control and power she had demonstrated thus far. Unlike Lady Macbeth and Desdemona,

18

Juarez

Volumnia’s life did not end. She did suffer just as much, however, by the loss of her son.

Coriolanus was Volumnia’s pride and joy. She had a very strong influence on her son’s

decisions. It is because of her that her son decides not to attack Rome, making her the savior

of their city. Despite the strong qualities that she holds, Volumnia still suffers from a death.

Within Shakespeare’s strong female characters, each still has a bitter end. Whether his

females were strong or weak, the play did not always work out in their favor.

Shakespeare continuously borrowed these character types through out his plays. His

weak and strong female characters would suffer from either lack of speech or death. His male

characters always strove for more power that eventually somehow corrupted them. By

borrowing these traits time and time again, Shakespeare makes himself less of an original. To

be original, he needs to be producing new and innovative ideas. He is not fulfilling this

requirement through his characters or through his themes. The themes of pride and honor

along with forgiveness reappear multiple times through out his works along with his

reoccurring plot devices. Deception and the separation of families play a major role within

his plays. While Shakespeare borrows from himself, he also borrowed from his influences.

The Renaissance period brought to his attention the popularity of Greek and Roman culture.

His focus also turned toward humanism, which he incorporated into his characters. Specific

authors such as Thomas Kyd and Geoffrey Chaucer had an obvious impact on his themes and

plots. Overall, Shakespeare cannot be considered an original. He was subjected to the

influences of the Renaissance and while he was creative he repeated that creativity through

out his works. He never proved himself to be the “first authentic example” and certainly did

not accomplish his works in an individual manner as the definition of an original suggests.

Being so, why is Shakespeare known as a genius and not a plagiarizer?

19

Juarez

During the Renaissance, there were no copyright laws. Todays laws would prohibit

Shakespeare from producing any works that are, “now known or later developed, from which

they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid

of a machine or device” (Samuels 53). It was accepted to plagiarize one another and

everyone did it. Thomas Green claims Shakespeare beautified himself with “our feathers.”

The contemporaries all borrowed from another but Green felt Shakespeare did not have the

right to their hard work. However, it is inevitable to borrow. Scholar Anthony Julius suggests

that literary invention can be taken to two extremes, “At one end, total originality: the

impossible work written in new language addressing a subject never before addressed; at the

other end, total derivativeness, the scandalous work, a mere transcription of an already

existing literary work” (Julius). Julius highly suggests that theft is highly necessary to the

creation, which is true. These writers could not fully seclude themselves from society to

produce an original work because they will inevitably be influenced by each other.

Shakespeare may not be an original, but no one can deny his talent. Ralph Waldo Emerson,

in defense of Shakespeare, wrote, “Great men are more distinguished by range and extent

than by originality” (Julius). Shakespeare’s works, although they consisted of borrowings

from outside influences and his own, are still part of a wide range. He addresses every type

of genre from comedies, histories, tragedies and romances. Shakespeare undoubtedly has a

lot of talent for not only being able to produce such a variety of works but successful ones at

that. Although Shakespeare cannot be proven as an original, it still does not take away from

his reputation. His plays within themselves prove how despite the criticisms, Shakespeare is

a successful and talented play writer.

20

Juarez

Shakespeare is not an original because his works reflect borrowings from the

Renaissance as well as from himself, but despite this fact, he can still be considered talented

because borrowing is ultimately inevitable. Influences from the Renaissance, such as Greek

and Roman culture and the concept of humanism, are incorporated in a few of Shakespeare’s

works. Specific people such as Thomas Kyd and Geoffrey Chaucer have an obvious impact

on Shakespeare’s themes and plots. While borrowing from others, Shakespeare continued to

borrow from himself. His use of plot devices, themes, and characters reappear through out

his works. He cannot be considered an original because each of his plays contains something

that is not his. Whether it be an idea influenced by the Renaissance, a contemporary, or

himself, as long as he reuses those ideas Shakespeare will never be an original. To be an

original, his works would have to be solely dependent on themselves. Although they are not,

his reputation should not be degraded because of it. Borrowing from one another was

accepted during the Renaissance. It was and is inevitable for a writer to not be influenced by

other sources. Shakespeare plagiarized but still succeeded in creating successful works. This

controversy of borrowing ultimately leads to one question, as scholar Anthony Julius asks,

“If we reject plagiarism, do we also reject literature itself?” (Julius).

21

Juarez

Works Cited

Andrews, John F. Shakespeare's World and Work. Vol. 3. Charles Scribner's, 2001. Print.

Evans, G. Blakmore, and J.J. M. Tobin, eds. The Riverside Shakespeare. Second Edition.

Houghton Mifflin Company, 1997. Print.

Harries, Laurie L., and Mark W. Scott. Shakespearean Criticism. Vol. 3. US: Gale

Research Company, 1986. Print.

Julius, Anthony Robert. "William Shakespeare, You Stand Accused of Being a Crow, an

Ape and a Thief; How Do You Plead?" New Statesman [1996] 15 May 1998.

Literature Resource Center.

Lee, Michelle. Ed. "Coriolanus." Shakespearean Criticism. Vol. 86. Gale, 2005. Literature

Resource Center. Web.

Morehead, Philip D. The New American Webster Handy College Dictionary. Third Ed.

New York: Penguin Putnam Inc., 1995. Print.

Renwick, W.L., and Harold Orton. The Beginnings of English Literature to Skelton.

London: the Cresset Press, 1952. Print.

Roberts, Paul J., ed. Shakespeare and the Medieval Tradition. Garland Publishing Inc.,

1985. Print.

Samuels, Edward. The Illustrated Story of Copyright. New York: St. Martin’s Press,

2000. Print.

Scott, Mark W., ed. Shakespearean Criticism. Vol. 4. US: Gale Research Company, 1987.

Print.

22

Juarez

Zott, Lynn M. ed. "Much Ado about Nothing." Shakespearean Criticism. Vol. 67. Detroit:

Gale, 2003. Literature Resource Center.

23