References
- Bate, J. (1997). The genius of Shakespeare. London: Picador.
- Barthes, R. (1988). The death of the author (1977). Image, music, text. essays selected and translated by Stephen Heath, 142-48.
- Barzun, J. (1989). The paradoxes of creativity. The American Scholar, 337-351.
- Bone, D. (1989). The emptiness of genius: Aspects of Romanticism. In P. Murray, (Ed.) Genius: The history of an idea (pp. 113-128). Oxford: Blackwell.
- Clare, J. (2014). Shakespeare’s stage traffic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Csikszentmihalyi, M., Getzels, J. W., & Kahn, S. P. (1984). Talent and achievement: A longitudinal study of artists (project report). University of Chicago.
- Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1998). Genius : A systems perspective. In R. Steptoe (Ed.) Genius and the mind: Studies of creativity and temperament in the historical record (pp. 39-67). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999) Implications of a systems perspective for the study of creativity, In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (p. 313-335). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Sawyer, K. (1995) Creative insight: The social dimension of a solitary moment. In The systems model of creativity: The collected works of Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi (pp. 73-98). Netherlands: Springer
- Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2015). The systems model of creativity: The collected works of Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. Springer: Netherlands.
- Crane, M. T. (2014). Framing authority: Sayings, self, and society in sixteenth-century England. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.
- Dahl, M. (2016). Authors of the mind. Journal of Early Modern Studies, 5, 157-173.
- Eco, U. (1989). The open work (A. Cancogni, Trans.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press. (Original work published 1962).
- Eliot, T. S. (1919) reprinted in Eliot, T.S. (1982). Tradition and the individual talent. Perspecta, 19, 36-42.
- Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of education and work, 14, 133-156.
- Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Römer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100, 363.
- Fischer, G., Giaccardi, E., Eden, H., Sugimoto, M., & Ye, Y. (2005). Beyond binary choices: Integrating individual and social creativity. International Journal of Human- Computer Studies, 63, 482-512.
- Florio, J. (1603). Montaigne’s Essays retrieved from https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1794/766/Emerson.pdf?sequence=1.
- Glăveanu, V. P. (2010). Paradigms in the study of creativity: Introducing the perspective of cultural psychology. New Ideas in Psychology, 28, 79-93.
- Glăveanu, V. P. (2014). Distributed creativity: Thinking outside the box of the creative individual. Cham/Heidelberger: Springer International Publishing.
- Glăveanu, V. P. (2015). The status of the social in creativity studies and the pitfalls of dichotomic thinking. Creativity. Theories-Research-Applications, 2, 102-119.
- Glăveanu, V. P. (2018). Epilogue: Creativity as immersed detachment, Journal of Creative Behaviour.
- Jowett, J. (2013) Shakespeare as collaborator. In P. Edmonson and S. Wells (Eds.), Shakespeare beyond doubt (pp. 88-100). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Kearney, R. (1988). The wake of imagination: Ideas of creativity in Western culture. London: Hutchinson.
- Malafouris, L. (2008). Between brains, bodies and things: tectonoetic awareness and the extended self. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 363, 1993-2002.
- Malafouris, L. (2015). Metaplasticity and the primacy of material engagement. Time and Mind, 8, 351-371.
- March, P.L. (2017). Playing with clay and the uncertainty of agency. A Material Engagement Theory perspective. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 1-19.
- Mardock, J. & Rasmussen, E. (2013). What does textual evidence reveal about the author? In P. Edmonson and S. Wells (Eds.), Shakespeare beyond doubt (pp. 111-121). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Masten, J. (1997). Textual intercourse: Collaboration, authorship, and sexualities in Renaissance drama. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Men, W., Falk, D., Sun, T., Chen, W., Li, J., Yin, D., Zang, L. & Fan, M. (2014). The corpus callosum of Albert Einstein‘s brain: Another clue to his high intelligence? Brain, 137, 268.
- Montuori, A., & Purser, R. E. (1995). Deconstructing the lone genius myth: Toward a contextual view of creativity. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 35, 69-112.
- Muir, K. (2014). Sources of Shakespeare's plays. London: Routledge.
- Nuttall, A. D. (2007). Shakespeare the thinker. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
- Petersen, L.B. (2016). Between authorship and oral transmission: Negotiating the attribution of authorial, oral and collective style markers in Early Modern playtexts. Journal of Early Modern Studies, 5, 277-306.
- Plutarch. (1909). Shakespeare’s Plutarch: Vol 2. Ed. C.F. Tucker Brooke, New York: Duffield and Company. Retrieved from http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/1843.
- Potter, L. (2014). Shakespeare and other men of the theater. Shakespeare Quarterly,65, 455-469.
- Rosso, O. A., Craig, H., & Moscato, P. (2009). Shakespeare and other English Renaissance authors as characterized by Information Theory complexity quantifiers. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 388, 916-926.
- Runco, M., & Jaeger, G. (2012). The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 24, 92-96.
- Shakespeare, W. (1997). Antony and Cleopatra. In S. Greenblatt (Ed.) The Norton Shakespeare (pp 2619-2708). New York: Norton. (Original work 1606-7).
- Simonton, D. K., Taylor, K., & Cassandro, V. J. (1998). The creative genius of William Shakespeare: Historiometric analyses of his plays and sonnets. In R. Steptoe (Ed.), Genius and the mind: Studies of creativity and temperament in the historical record, (pp 167-192). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Simonton, D. K. (2004). Thematic content and political context in Shakespeare's dramatic output, with implications for authorship and chronology controversies. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 22, 201-213.
- Simonton, D. K. (2010). Creativity in highly eminent individuals. In J. Kaufman & R. Sternberg (Eds.) The Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp.174-188). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Steptoe, R. (Ed.) (1998) Genius and the mind: Studies of creativity and temperament in the historical record. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Sternberg, R. J. (1996). Costs of expertise. In K. A. Ericsson (Ed.), The road to excellence: The acquisition of expert performance in the arts and sciences, sports, and games (pp. 347-354). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
- Weisberg, R. (1986). Creativity: Genius and other myths. New York: W.H. Freeman.
- Weisberg, R. (1993). Creativity: Beyond the myth of genius. New York: W.H. Freeman.
- Weisberg, R. (2006). Creativity understanding innovation in problem solving, science, invention, and the arts. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
- Wells, S. (2006). Shakespeare and Co.: Christopher Marlowe, Thomas Dekker, Ben Jonson, Thomas Middleton, John Fletcher, and the other players in his story. London: Penguin.
- Williams, W.P. (2018). [Review of Taylor, G. and Egan, G. (Eds), The New Oxford Shakespeare: Authorship companion. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.] In Notes and Queries, 263, 131-134.