Because there is so much that we don't know about the actual process involved in the writing of the plays, we will probably never be able to ascertain with any real accuracy the importance of collaboration to Shakespeare. But there are some clues. Of all the forms of literature, it seems obvious that drama is the most collaborative. The mere presence of the actors and audience alone would seem to prove that contention. Also, in Shakespeare's time, there was much less concern for copyrights and fame than there is now. Rather the idea seems to have been to simply get the plays onto the stage, and the people into the theatres. The fact that Shakespeare never seemed to have any sort of involvement with the publishing of his plays seems to prove this point; only his early poetry got this type of attention from him. Then there is the matter of collaboration with other playwrights. And while scholars generally agree that approximately a quarter of the plays show evidence of having had more than one author, this is an area that remains contentious as well. A final point for today: Shakespeare's collaboration, whatever it entailed, is evidence of strength, not weakness. The fact that each play contains different themes, technical feats, poetic ideas, philosophical content, psychological observations, and approaches to language - and that all of it was done with unparalleled attention to detail - it all points to only one possible conclusion: Shakespeare was a great listener. More on this tomorrow.