I’ve done a little research. It seems that Shakespeare was inspired by several older works. If that’s the case, it’s not plagiarism. Plenty of Disney movies like Frozen or the Lion King are based off of older stories.
1 Like
I mean, he should’ve said, in his play, “Adapted from ‘The Tragical History of Romeus and Juliet’ by Arthur Brooke” or something like that. If people didn’t know about this, they would assume that Romeo and Juliet was completely the original product of Shakespeare. Come on, he should’ve at least mentioned Brooke’s name in there somewhere, otherwise he’s just taking someone else’s work, modding it, and calling it his own.
This is what happened, as I understand it. A man named Mateo Bandello wrote the original Romeo and Juliet story, based off of true events. Then, several years later, Arthur Brooke translated Bandello’s story, and added a few other details. Then, more years later, Shakespeare saw Brooke’s story, and decided to write his own version, once again changing some of it.
So if Shakespeare’s a plagiarizer, (unless I’m missing something), then so is Arthur Brooke. However, in my opinion, neither of them are plagiarizers. Shakespeare seems to have used Brooke as an inspiration, rather than someone to copy from.
Besides, IDK if this is a good point or not, but plagiarism wasn’t made illegal until the 18th century, a century after Shakespeare’s death. reusing pre-established plot lines was expected at the time.
…No
1 Like
That’s not a play though. It merely inspired the work. That’s not plagiarism.
Do you know anything about early modern copyright process?
Because it didn’t exist. You could take anything and adapt it without problems. Shakespeare made many other plays based off historical events (like Richard III and Henry V) and yet nobody lambasts him on plagiarizing history. Also, Shakespeare totally makes the play his own by adding so many original elements and witty dialogue.
I just think it is ridiculous to accuse the greatest playwrite of the day and accuse him of “plagiarism”. Especially when what he is doing is not plagiarizing, he is adapting. If he was plagiarizing, he would take the poem and claim it as his own. But what he did was change elements and create new ones and format it into a play which allows him to make an original product. The term “plagiarism” is thrown around far too loosely, which makes such an offense mean so little.
2 Likes