To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure firstname.lastname@example.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Source analysis has long proven a productive tool in Shakespeare studies, given the breadth, abundance and variety of narrative traditions that Shakespeare demonstrably borrowed from and adapted. In addition to the insight that the study of identified sources can provide into the processes of narrative construction and adaptation in his plays, this approach also sheds valuable broader light on the dynamic literary and cultural mosaics of early modern England and Europe more widely. This, in turn, informs scholarly understanding of what types of stories or texts were known, being actively transmitted and reshaped, and resonating with contemporary readerships and audiences. Additionally, identifying and understanding Shakespeare’s sources can often usefully illuminate the chronological development and evolution of individual narrative traditions to which those sources belong, traditions which variously extend back to biblical, classical and medieval roots.1 Source analysis does have clear and obvious limitations, however. For one thing, the scale of influence on any text or author inevitably varies from source to source, meaning that filiation cannot always be posited conclusively. For another, Shakespeare is recognized to have collaborated actively with other playwrights, which complicates questions of direct influence.2 For a third, not all of Shakespeare’s (or his co-authors’) literary sources have survived. Then there is also the substantial matter of oral sources and traditions, of which little can be definitively known, barring the fortuitous survival of sufficient auxiliary evidence such as analogues. The murky uncertainties which arise from such issues are evident in the long debate over the nature of Hamlet’s relationship with the putative ‘ur-Hamlet’, which serves to exemplify both the accepted value of source identification and the extent of its limits.