Need more controversy?

How about Shakespeare as Plagiarist?

To begin, a definition is in order. The word plagiarize comes from Latin words for abduct and steal. It is a relatively modern concept (200 years old as a chargeable offense). Its definition, essentially, is to pass off another’s creation as one’s own.

It is commonly accepted that Shakespeare read many sources in preparing his plays, relying significantly on three texts:

Ovid’s Metamorphoses (for Greek/Roman myth)

Plutarch’s Lives (for Roman history)

Holinshed’s Chronicles (for English and Northern European history)

In addition to these sources, Shakespeare also reworked earlier texts – the early Italian play “Romeo e Giulietta” is a classic example of a weak, forgettable drama made immortal through its reincarnation as Shakespeare’s apprentice tragedy.

So let’s get this straight:

Did Shakespeare rely on sources to inform his plays?

Well, yeah.

Did Shakespeare take earlier texts and rework them in a manner that pleased audiences in his day and for centuries after?

Sure did.

So, Shakespeare was a plagiarist, right?

Umm . . . No.

Well, why not?

Several reasons, really, but here are the three best:

1. Plagiarism as we know it is a concept that didn’t exist in the late 16th and early 17th centuries. Ideas weren’t owned. It’s that simple.

2. Reading history in order to write about historical figures (or reading myth to write about mythical figures) is necessary, not stealthy.

3. But the best reason to absolve Bill of plagiarism charges remains the classic (and still current) defense of improvement or artful superiority.

In other words, yes, he borrowed from historians and mythologists; and yes, he took weak plays and made them strong.

But he did it so well!

In the words of T.S. Eliot: “Mediocre writers borrow. Great writers steal.”

A final note:

Please note that plagiarism is primarily an academic construct: one must cite all sources of words, ideas or data in academic writing.

Further, one must refrain from presenting the exact words of others as one’s own in non-academic writing.

Shakespeare violated neither of these rules, even though he was under no obligation to observe them.