Shakespeare stealing again

One of those frequently misunderstood problems with Shakespeare is his propensity to lift material from other people - nowadays we would call it plagiarism.

One of the most fascinating, I think, is the meeting of Faustus and Helen from Marlow's play:

[B]FAUSTUS.[/B] Was this the face that launch'd a thousand ships,
And burnt the topless towers of Ilium--
Sweet Helen, make me immortal with a kiss.--
[Kisses her.]
Her lips suck forth my soul: see, where it flies!--
Come, Helen, come, give me my soul again.
Here will I dwell, for heaven is in these lips,
And all is dross that is not Helena.
I will be Paris, and for love of thee,
Instead of Troy, shall Wertenberg be sack'd;
And I will combat with weak Menelaus,
And wear thy colours on my plumed crest;
Yea, I will wound Achilles in the heel,
And then return to Helen for a kiss.
O, thou art fairer than the evening air
Clad in the beauty of a thousand stars;
Brighter art thou than flaming Jupiter
When he appear'd to hapless Semele;
More lovely than the monarch of the sky
In wanton Arethusa's azur'd arms;
And none but thou shalt be my paramour!
[Exeunt.]

Now, do you remember Romeo seeing Juliet for the first time?

Something like

- Oh, she doth teach the torches to burn bright. -

Do I smell the smoke of Jupiter in this? :)

And what are we to make of the stage action - Kiss and Kiss again? :smash:

ROMEO If I profane with my unworthiest hand
This holy shrine, the gentle sin is this:
My lips, two blushing pilgrims, ready stand
To smooth that rough touch with a tender kiss.

JULIET Good pilgrim, you do wrong your hand too much,
Which mannerly devotion shows in this;
For saints have hands that pilgrims' hands do touch,
And palm to palm is holy palmers' kiss.

ROMEO Have not saints lips, and holy palmers too?

JULIET Ay, pilgrim, lips that they must use in prayer.

ROMEO O, then, dear saint, let lips do what hands do;
They pray, grant thou, lest faith turn to despair.

JULIET Saints do not move, though grant for prayers' sake.

ROMEO Then move not, while my prayer's effect I take.
Thus from my lips, by yours, my sin is purged.

JULIET Then have my lips the sin that they have took.

ROMEO Sin from thy lips? O trespass sweetly urged!
Give me my sin again.

Now, if that isn't a direct copy of the Faustus scene, I am a Dutchman.

What is amazing is the way this connection is frequenltly ignored.

Why has Shakespeare chosen to lift a scene where a man very close to death and on his way to hell is instantly struck by a beautiful illusion and plays a word game of passing sins and souls in kisses?

He knew his audience - and they knew Marlow's play.

Modern interpretations of the Shakespeare scene all seem to focus on the beauty of the young lovers, the magnificent of the sentiments, the way Romeo has suddenly matured into a warm feeling adult (hours before he was an unfeeling teenager).

Put it next to Marlow though and a rather darker image emerges - a fool heading for death and hell, blinded by the devil's false beauty.

And because of the mindset, it is beautiful, interpreters tend to ignore the blasphamy too. Romeo, in order to impress Juliet, uses religous images - compares himself to a pilgrim and links prayer to his base wish for her body.
That would not go down well with the strongly held religous views of Shakespeare's audience.

That, I did not know -- it makes for much more interesting discussion on the nature of the relationship between Romeo and Juliet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by akfarrar

Modern interpretations of the Shakespeare scene all seem to focus on the beauty of the young lovers, the magnificent of the sentiments, the way Romeo has suddenly matured into a warm feeling adult (hours before he was an unfeeling teenager).
Put it next to Marlow though and a rather darker image emerges - a fool heading for death and hell, blinded by the devil's false beauty.

And because of the mindset, it is beautiful, interpreters tend to ignore the blasphamy too. Romeo, in order to impress Juliet, uses religous images - compares himself to a pilgrim and links prayer to his base wish for her body.
That would not go down well with the strongly held religous views of Shakespeare's audience.

---

Yes, that - the "magnificent of the sentiments"- is the only focus of some of the modern interpretations, the mediocre ones. Where did you read those interpretations that do not mention the dark underlying theme of this play? I'm here to tell you that it is not necessary to put Romeo next to Faustus to see dark images, though you may. The flaws of Romeo's character and are reflected in Shakespeare's own words and play; but it is not, however foolish, flawed, or ignorant, what you accuse it to be: a conscious trade of his soul with the devil. A connection can be made, yes, yet you will certainly fail to prove that it is a direct copy or that they are as closely related as you announce them to be. And the rest of your accusations are simply inaccurate insults to the characters - would you like to come up with some evidence for your insertions that I quote above?

So the "kiss and kiss again" stage action is the only evidence behind your verdict that Shakespeare plagiarised? And "flaming Jupiter" = "torches"? Why, 'cause they're both bright? You call that an interpretation? Or would you like to expand on that? - If not, please do not insult the "modern interpretation" or mistake it with your... I don't know what to call it.

akfarrar,
Interesting point.Just wanted to check if you were aware that there were no copyright laws in Shakespeare's time. You may also be unaware that Shakespeare, and many many other writers, in the same way screenwriters and many other writers do today, used well known stories frequently to base their plays on. Shakespeare just happened to write the best versions. People took ideas from him too. There weren't the rules for that kind of thing then. You will see parallels with other stories in many of Shakespeare's plays, this is not a new concept, nor is it a surprise. He knew a good story when he saw it and decided to write a play about it. You will also find that he references stuff from Ovid quite regularly, and many of his characters are based on the characters in Ovid's work.
Come on, these plays exist for a reason. They are good. How famous are the other versions? Not very. Because they aren't as good. You will find many many versions of the story of Romeo and Juliet that were written before Shakespeare's version.
The interesting thing you bring up is the idea that
Romeo, in order to impress Juliet, uses religous images - compares himself to a pilgrim and links prayer to his base wish for her body.
That would not go down well with the strongly held religous views of Shakespeare's audience.[/I]
I'm not even going to talk about his "base wish for her body", much, I mean, come on, its the "lust or love" argument, you can't have love without lust, and to be honest, its a cynical adult view that he wants nothing more than sex. Have a sense of adventure, try falling in love and see how you react.
The interesting thing you bring up is the religious idea. (apart from the fact that you seem to assume the audience was full of prim and proper chaste virginal law abiding church worshipping non life living ignorant people) The thing that interests me about this is that R & J do both pay for this lighthearted blasphemy. So does everyone else in the play. They all pay for their constant needs to go against the law and the church and their parents. But we know that from the start, i.e. PROLOGUE. It tells us they're meant to die and everyone suffers. In the end though, it serves the greater good of the society. THIS is something that nearly everyone forgets. It reminiscnet of Greek tragedy, in that at the end, the greater society is restored to balance through the demise of the protagonists, who aren't generally bad people but people we have come to love and enjoy the company of.
Thats all I have to say for now.
Have a nice day!

is not that Shakespeare is immoral - but that he conciously took the Faustus scene and 'made reference' to it.

I am more interested in the why of this than anything else. :yawnb:

Unlike today - Faustus was a very well known play. Shakespeare and his acting friends would have acted in it - it is impossible for him Not to have copied knowingly the Faustus scene - Why did he do it?

(As for people who think you can understand Shakespeare without reference to the Theatre and performance, well, the petulance of youth? Or could it be ignorance induced by Bardolatory?) ;)

Lust and Love:

The Elizabethans acctually distinguished between them - love was deom the soul, and that (for them) was located in the Brain; Lust was a bodily humour - and had its origins in the heart - so, whereas we don't easily differentiate, they certainly did in shakespeare's Time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by akfarrar

[My point] is not that Shakespeare is immoral - but that he conciously took the Faustus scene and 'made reference' to it.

---

I think I can speak for many when I say that 'taking a scene and making reference to it' is very different from "stealing" or "plagiarising". Stick to your original point.

I did not accuse you of saying that Shakespeare is immoral, you did not need to justify yourself there. I accused you, for discussion's sake, of exactly what you said: that Shakespeare was "stealing" and committing "plagiarism" from the "Helen" scene. Now if you think that "stealing" and "plagiarism" are not immoral, I'll leave it to you; that's not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing the validity of your claim.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by akfarrar

Unlike today - Faustus was a very well known play. Shakespeare and his acting friends would have acted in it - it is impossible for him Not to have copied knowingly the Faustus scene - Why did he do it.

---

So let me try to break down your argument this time. From all that I can read here, you're saying that, because Shakespeare acted in "The tragical history of Doctor Faustus", it was immpossible for him to plagiarise from it? That would indeed be a tragic course of nature. For you are, in effect, saying that no player can ever write anything without plagiarising from the work that they acted in, are you not? Even if you do not mean to, you still are; blame the failure of logical thinking in such a case.

PS. "Faustus" is more well-known than you suggested. It's your accusations involving it that are not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by akfarrar

(As for people who think you can understand Shakespeare without reference to the Theatre and performance, well, the petulance of youth? Or could it be ignorance induced by Bardolatory?)

---

Is this addressed to me? If so:

Is not the question whether Shakespeare has plagiarised or not? Thus to support the 'for' with Shakespeare's acting career is a major fallacy. Yes, yes, understanding Shakespeare needs reference to theatre (and if by "theatre" you meant a mention that Shakespeare also acted, or a partial text from "Fautus", then yes, you might have even made reference to "theatre" yourself). But evidence that would show whether Shakespeare has plagiarised or not surely lies in the texts and the study of them, evidence which I asked you to produce. No, no, it wasn't the ignorance of youth or the ignorance of bardolatry; it was the yearning for logic, evidence, and the repulsion to the lack of them in your argument that prompted my reaction. You got it all wrong.

Furthermore, are you perchance saying that all defence of Shakespeare from plagiarism is bardolatry? Even if by my misfortune that it be true, I didn't defend Shakespeare (at least, I had not started such defence), I merely asked you to prove your accusations. Would you mind? Then I will show you how defending Shakespeare can be the very opposite of ignorant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by akfarrar

I am more interested in the why of this than anything else.

---

Perhaps it was my mistake, and if it turns out to be, please accept my apologies. But I have to ask, in which part of your original post did you ask "why?". 'Cause all I can see are accusations and (faulty) analysis.

Very little time but:

"I think I can speak for many when I say that 'taking a scene and making reference to it' is very different from "stealing" or "plagiarising". Stick to your original point."

I said originally:

One of those frequently misunderstood problems with Shakespeare is his propensity to lift material from other people (notice the words frequently midunderstood? And my use of the word lifting - not stealing.).

in which part of your original post did you ask "why?"

I said

Why has Shakespeare chosen to lift a scene . . .

Another quicky:

"Yes, yes, understanding Shakespeare needs reference to theatre (and if by "theatre" you meant a mention that Shakespeare also acted, or a partial text from "Fautus", then yes, you might have even made reference to "theatre" yourself)."

1. I used the words, the Theatre - notice the capital letter - for a reason.

2. I assume people reading the two original quotes would realise they are performance texts and apply their knowledge of Elizabethan theatre to find the connections for themselves.

Sorry for those who don't know enough about the Theatre or the theatre to understand my point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by akfarrar

(notice the words frequently midunderstood? And my use of the word lifting - not stealing.).

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by akfarrar

Shakespeare stealing again

---

So sorry; it was completely incompetence on my part to count the title of your post as a part of it, which, as you might have noticed, does include "stealing". Or was it on my part?

In any case, I am afraid "lift" can also mean "steal" (look in a dictionary near you). I'm sure a theatrical expert such as yourself would have foreseen such misunderstanding from your audience? Or was it a misunderstanding?

And, my, what can "plagiarism" possibly mean that is not the same as "stealing" in the theatrical world, I wonder. Or do I have to?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by akfarrar

I said

Why has Shakespeare chosen to lift a scene . . .

---

So sorry again, but I mistook this for a rhetorical question for its tone and content suggests so, and for the answer was provided immediately after. Let us see the full original quote:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by akfarrar

What is amazing is the way this connection is frequenltly ignored.

Why has Shakespeare chosen to lift a scene where a man very close to death and on his way to hell is instantly struck by a beautiful illusion and plays a word game of passing sins and souls in kisses?

He knew his audience - and they knew Marlow's play.

---

Now if "He knew his audience - and they knew Marlow's play" was not an answer to the previous question; it would find itself a little lost on that line, wouldn't it? Thus I thought it was sensible to assume that it was, which makes your previous question a rhetorical one. Although I can see why you would try to squeeze some kind of genuine question out of that bit, the rest of them lacks it so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by akfarrar

I used the words, the Theatre - notice the capital letter - for a reason.

---

Which is? Surely you must have seen this question coming. And are you intending to expand on your original argument or was that the extent of it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by akfarrar

I assume people reading the two original quotes would realise they are performance texts and apply their knowledge of Elizabethan theatre to find the connections for themselves.

---

Yes, I finally realise that they were indeed performance texts, thank you so much. Though I don't see how that avoids you the trouble of explaining yourself. Would you mind explaining how, supposedly, a person with knowledge of Elizabethan theatre would find connections? Perhaps more on the same line of "flaming Jupiter" = "torches" ergo "plagiarism"? But I understand if you have

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by akfarrar

very little time

---

I've heard that before.

And,

Quote:

---

Sorry for those who don't know enough about the Theatre or the theatre to understand my point.

---

I'm deeply moved by your sympathy toward them, and, of course, the same goes to those other people who don't understand your point. Thank you.

PS. Perhaps it is also sensible to expect such an expert on Kit Marlowe's works to spell his name correctly?

1. Time - I was between lectures and had literally 10 min - scorn for hardworking people?

2. Title - aim to get the punters to read the text, and irony. The word lift was carefully picked - yep, know the multiplicity of meanins.

3. You asked where I had said 'WHY' - I post a direct quote - I didn't say I didn't have my own views on it - and it certainly is the centre of my interest- your failure to see that is not my problem. The fact that the question is right at the point where I turn from making the connection, to talking about the question might suggest it is not hidden away - but at a significant point.

4. Theatre (as in the - original building where Marlowes plays were performed, most likely with a young Shakespeare in the cast).

5. Shakeshaft and marlon didnt spel a word coorectli in there lifs - modern accepted spellin aint necessarily sow.

Just a little more - try reading my posts on Empty Spaces and You are what you Wear, and they might help you to understand the importance to the plays of things not in the text.

The torches thing that has you puzzled - think of the original performance and you might get a clue.

Worth quoting:

Just wanted to check if you were aware that there were no copyright laws in Shakespeare's time. You may also be unaware that Shakespeare, and many many other writers, in the same way screenwriters and many other writers do today, used well known stories frequently to base their plays on. Shakespeare just happened to write the best versions. People took ideas from him too. There weren't the rules for that kind of thing then.

Exactly, the stupidity of intellectual property would have struck Shakespeare all too quickly - which of his plays would he gat away with today I wonder without an American lawyer making a fortune?

This is at the heart of what I am saying - the ability to copy in the play gives an onion like layering making references - it happened in many ways in the theatre - not just in the text, but (pure Spekthis one) did the same actor play Faustus and Romeo?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by akfarrar

Time - I was between lectures and had literally 10 min - scorn for hardworking people?.

---

No, not at all. Though, the mistery of why you don't answer any significant question asked is now solved. Though, puzzling still, the first post seems so long and "carefully picked". No lectures then I guess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by akfarrar

Title - aim to get the punters to read the text, and irony.

---

It is a powerful weapon, denial. By the way, great punt, 'cause "stealing" can also mean... wait, what's the punt for the title again? So this thread is for punters only, is it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by akfarrar

Theatre (as in the - original building where Marlowes plays were performed, most likely with a young Shakespeare in the cast).

---

Compelling argument. Wait, what are you arguing again? I seem to have missed the part where it explains how this is significant to your argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by akfarrar

Shakeshaft and marlon didnt spel a word coorectli in there lifs - modern accepted spellin aint necessarily sow.

---

:lol: How pathetic. Sure, that Elizabethan spellings were not fixed; but modern spellings are; hence we have the Dictionary. And, oh yeah, I'm sure I've seen Shakespeare signing his work William Shakeshaft somewhere in 16th Century texts. No, I won't ask for proof, you already have enough on your hands here. Aren't we in a "modern accepted" conversation though? Yeah, I think we are. You seemed to have spelt "Shakespeare" alright before; and that's the longer one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by akfarrar

Just a little more - try reading my posts on Empty Spaces and You are what you Wear, and they might help you to understand the importance to the plays of things not in the text.

---

Thanks, I'll put 'em right there next to Shakespeare on my reading list. Though, still waiting for an explanation here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by akfarrar

The torches thing that has you puzzled - think of the original performance and you might get a clue

---

Well explained, I... The original performance? The one back in the 16th century? I'm so sorry, I didn't get a chance to go, I was so busy with non-existence. Or is this like the "stealing" thing: punters only? Though, why don't you attempt to explain it yourself, for those of us who are born in the 20th century, or haven't seen the "original performance".

"Think of the original performance and you will get a clue",
Read my other threads and you will see,
"Apply their knowledge on Elizabethan theatre to work it out for themselves":
Responsibilities all well dodged. Bravo. So will you actually do any explaining yourself here or need I not check this thread further?

Please refrain from ad hominem comments.. whether of one's grammar/spelling or posting quality/style/ability or their IQ or whatever etc. ad nauseum... further such content will be deleted.

Quote:

---

Exactly, the stupidity of intellectual property would have struck Shakespeare all too quickly - which of his plays would he gat away with today I wonder without an American lawyer making a fortune.

---

Ahem, I suppose you would sue the creators of the "reality show," Big Brother, because they must have "lifted" it from a great work of Orwell. Or go rampant with a lawsuit to the producers of "Survivor," because it seems all too similar to Lord of the Flies. But I do apologize, I do not know what a "punter" is.

Definition, PUNTER

Wiki:
In British English, a colloquialism for:
a customer of a prostitute.
a customer of any business, the usage being primarily found in London and Essex.

Second is closest to my usage.

I suppose you would sue the creators of the "reality show," Big Brother, because they must have "lifted" it from a great work of Orwell. Or go rampant with a lawsuit to the producers of "Survivor," because it seems all too similar to Lord of the Flies.

No, my point is that Shakespeare used other people's ideas and would not have understood intellectual property rights - so he was able to do things (which lifted both his work and the status of the original) modern writers find difficult to do - use other people's work as an integral part of their own.

And it is a little more than taking an idea - Shakespeare gets much closer than that.

(By the way, Lord of the Flies is a 'copy' of Coral Island - which is a take on Robinson Crusoe, which is itself a 'take' on a real event. :bawling: )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by akfarrar

And it is a little more than taking an idea - Shakespeare gets much closer than that.

---

Yes, and how close did he get? Still waiting for some substance here - I mean other than the undeniable Fautus and Romeo connections.

The ’evidence’ is in the two extracts quoted. To understand the extent of the copying Shakespeare does, one needs to not only look at the words ’spoken’, but at the actions and metaphors used.

In addition, it is worth remembering that this is a play script intended not for reading but for performance on a stage.

In performance, on many occasions, ’actions speak louder than words’ : The exchange of kisses is very obviously a point of comparrison : it is the over-riding image on stage– and there are word echoes (give me my soul/sin again) linking the actions.

Flaming Jupiter – is an image of fire – as is the torche – which would have been on stage in the original production to indicate night.

The closeness in time of writing of the two plays, the fact that some of the same actors would have appeared in the two productions – including possibly Shakespeare himself – would make it impossible for Shakespeare not to have known the connections between the two – so, he deliberately takes the all important stage action, part of the metaphor and even directly quotes the language.

The Elizabethan education system made people „copy” and adapt – it was not thought of as plagerism, as it would nowadays in the Western Academic World (in fact, it is still a technique used in many none-western education systems). People in the audience would be listening for the original and seeing what was done to it – in fact, a totally original work would be considered weak, arrogant and upstartish.

My post makes the point that Shakespeare is stealing the image from the play Faustus – but, instead of depriving Marlow of anything, he is in fact complementing (in the sense of being in harmony with as well as praising) the original – raising in the minds of an Elizabethan audience the image of sin and corruption, deception and evil – which are not elements this scene provokes in any production I have ever seen on the contemporary stage (and I have seen in excess of 20 productions in my lifetime – including RSC productions).

To understand my post it is necessary to examine closely the original quotes keeping in mind they are only part of what happens on stage. One also needs to bring into consideration the production techniques of the original production (daylight performances, male actors – playing many roles in one play, the heavy referencing of one work to another – not only in the words, but by one actor playing many parts, etc, etc).

I ask the question, ’Why does Shakespeare copy?’ – and provide an answer – he wants to raise certain images and issues we have lost from modern productions – which are heavily influenced by the Romantic ideas of writers like Goethe (suicide is beautiful).

The word lift does mean steal – but it also means to raise, to take higher: By lifting in the sense of stealing, Shakespeare lifts Marlow’s work to an even higher level – is that stealing?

Firstly, thanks for labouring the point.

'Lift' can mean raising higher, yes; though can 'lift' in "lift material from other people" have that meaning? Hmm, I'll leave that to the 'grammartical judgement' of other readers. And using other writers' material, even in Elizabethan times, is different from 'stealing', which expresses a criminal or at least dishonest nature of an act. But you seem to be defending Shakespeare with regards to dishonesty and criminality, because apparently 'steal' was purely for marketing purposes and is exempt from the interpretation of original your post.

Anyway, this has been a pointless argument, hasn't it? Let's get it over with. If you say that the argument you have just put forth in the immediately preceeding post is the same as the original argument that you tried to make with the opening post and you did not use 'steal' with any negative meaning, I'll believe you; in which case, I misunderstood you and there was no argument to begin with.

Perhaps we can have a productive discussion about Marlowe or Shakespeare soon elsewhere.

Regit. Nice to see you. If you've read Antony and Cleopatra, perhaps you can join the discussion. http://www.online-literature.com/for...213#post305213

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by akfarrar

Sorry for those who don't know enough about the Theatre or the theatre to understand my point.

---

Well, at the risk of having this patronizing-sounding sentence pointed my way, I have to ask why this discussion at all? The Elizabethan theater was not some long-standing tradition that Shakespeare wandered into and started plundering. Marlowe was the first great Elizabethan dramatist of the late 16th century, and - influencial as he was - it's natural that Shakespeare (whose early plays bear considerable influence from Marlowe) would imitate the current master of the iambic pentameter line. As has been pointed out correctly above, dramas put on during this time period were quite often based on already extant stories or prior dramas - most people know that Shakepeare reworked familiar stories into the great works of art we appreciate today. The idea that he "plagiarized" is rather silly, because dramas were not created to be published works. Like today's movie scripts, their only function was to provide the actors with dialogue. After memorized, the script would likely find itself trashed, or lining the bottom of a pie pan. As well, dramtists often collaborated on plays (without credit) - so I'm sure ideas were reused, recycled, whatever. That he may have borrowed a line of dialogue or mirrored the language of a scene would only be considered plagiarism by today's highly-sensitive, litigation-happy publishers/authors. I can't imagine anybody in Shakespeare's time (good Christopher Marlowe included) would have had any problem with the similarity posted above.

It just seems like this is an unnecessary hair to split.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

Regit. Nice to see you. If you've read Antony and Cleopatra, perhaps you can join the discussion. http://www.online-literature.com/for...213#post305213

---

Thank you for the invitation. I have read this play quite a while ago and quite briefly; enough that I do not feel myself qualified to give a very valuable contribution. However, I'm hoping to attend an RSC performance of this same play in March, which is an incentive for me to read it again carefully. Thus, I hope to be able to join this discussion soon. Thank you.

Here's an old thread. I just would like to mention, that writers have been deriving their works from different stories for ages, before and after Shakespeare.

We need to find a dividing line between plagarism and homage/derivitation