I'm not asking about language, of course; that would have to be adjusted between English and French in my example. I'm asking about the subject matter, the things talked and not talked about, the ideas and concepts used, the kind of humor employed, and the other cultural nuances separate from the language itself.

(I'm also aware they lived in slightly different time periods and would never actually meet, although I think the periods are close enough to make a fair comparison at the high level I'm making).

Even though both Shakespeare and Moliere wrote both tragedies and comedies, I always thought of Shakespeare as the more iconic tragedist, and Moliere as the more iconic comedist, at least within their time and place of work. Looking deeper at the kind of things they focused on, I can't help but feel both could only thrive in their culture, but not in the other, even if they had been equally fluent in both languages.

For example, subject-matter wise, Moliere's predominant focus on love affairs, with a rather casual attitude to love and lovers, seems very stereotypical of how we perceive French culture, and might be considered decadent, or even indecent, by a contemporary English audience, which had a bigger influence of Puritans. Conversely, Shakespeare's coverage of political subjects, open criticism of historic kings, and sympathetic (or at least morally ambiguous) treatment of regicides, pretenders, and civil war, might not be acceptable by the far more absolutist French government, or even seen as seditious.

And style-wise, similarly, Moliere's style may be seen as too jovial and non-serious to an English audience (irrespective of the subject matter), whereas Shakespeare might come across as too intense for much of the French audience.

This kind of cultural and societal pressure might do more than just restrict what an existing author would write about. It might shape their style of how they write the things they do. It might also provide selection pressure that determines what kind of artists make it to the top in the first place. France may have had an aspiring Shakespeare, and England an aspiring Moliere, but neither ever became famous because their style and subject didn't resonate with their audiences.

Then again, these might be just my personal biases based on stereotypes, and I wonder if a historian would see them as such.

My question isn't specifically tied to these two authors, I'm only using them as an example (although, I admit, one I'm particularly curious about). More broadly, I was wondering whether how much weight do historians give to the environment and culture of a great artist - and to what extend it's legitimate to look at an artist's work primarily through the lens of their environment. Could one analyze an artist, or several artists, and through them, make conclusions about the broader society they were part of? Could one analyze the society, and make conclusions about the author's work and decisions? Is there any reading mateiral on this type of literary criticism?