logo
A Bombshell New Study Suggests Shakespeare May Not Have Written 15 of His Famous Plays

A Bombshell New Study Suggests Shakespeare May Not Have Written 15 of His Famous Plays

Yahoo04-04-2025
This story is a collaboration with Biography.com
William Shakespeare is undeniably one of the most famous writers in human history. The 39 shows attributed to the 'Bard of Avon' have been performed, adapted, and studied innumerable times in the centuries since they debuted, and his 154 sonnets are some of the most quoted poems in the world.
The very name Shakespeare has become synonymous with the dramatic arts. But for a segment of the literary community some might call 'conspiracy theorists,' it shouldn't be.
Not because they believe the plays themselves, like Hamlet and Julius Caesar, are incorrectly placed within the literary canon. Rather, they think they're simply incorrectly labeled; specifically, on the author page.
This contingency, known as the Anti-Stratfordians (in reference to Shakespeare's home of Stratford-upon-Avon), argue that The Bard's lack of education and modest upbringing don't square with the vast vocabulary on display in Shakespeare's celebrated plays. 'They note that both of Shakespeare's parents were likely illiterate,' Biography.com states in further explaining the stance of the Anti-Stratfordians, 'and it seems as if his surviving children were as well, leading to skepticism that a noted man of letters would neglect the education of his own children.'
The Anti-Stratfordians also claim that 'none of the letters and business documents that survive give any hint of Shakespeare as an author,' and raise questions like 'Why was there no public mourning for him when he died?'
But these claims can all be refuted to one degree or another by those who believe in Shakespeare's authorship. Shakespeare's modest background? It's ultimately not dissimilar to that of Christopher Marlowe, a peer of Shakespeare's whose authorship of celebrated plays like Doctor Faustus has never been in doubt. In response to the claim of a lack of contemporary records, Biography.com notes that 'Tudor officials responsible for ascertaining authorship of plays attributed several works to Shakespeare.' And the claim of a lack of mourning is undercut by no less than Jacobean author Ben Jonson, whose esteemed poem 'To the Memory of My Beloved the Author, William Shakespeare' reads:
'To draw no envy, Shakespeare, on thy name,
Am I thus ample to thy book and fame;
While I confess thy writings to be such
As neither man nor muse can praise too much'
These debates of authorship tend to treat inference as evidence, and as such, can never really be conclusive. But a new study published by Oxford University Press offers new insight into the authorship debate. And it does so by taking the human element out entirely.
The study from Zeev Volkovich and Renata Avros, titled 'Comprehension of the Shakespeare authorship question through deep impostors approach,' decided to see if a deep neural network could do what centuries of scholars could not: conclusively identify works attributed to, but not written by, William Shakespeare.
The duo refer to their methodology for the analysis as 'Deep Imposter':
'The approach uses a set of known impostor texts to analyze the origin of a target text collection. Both the target texts and impostors are divided into an equal number of word segments. A deep neural network, either a Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) or a pre-trained BERT transformer, is then trained and fine-tuned to differentiate between impostor segments.'
After a process which converted these text segments into numerical signals, the tested texts were clustered into two groups, which can be simplified into a score of 1 or 2. Those texts in cluster 1 would be those determined to be 'imposter texts' not composed by the author in question.
When Shakespeare's works were run through the aforementioned CNN neural network, a staggering fifteen titles were placed into cluster 1. Those included not just the usual suspects of 'Shakespeare Apocrypha' (works with no clear author sometimes attributed to Shakespeare) like A Yorkshire Tragedy and Arden of Faversham, but also some of the most beloved staples of the Shakespeare canon like The Merry Wives of Windsor, The Tragedy of Antony and Cleopatra, and A Midsummer Night's Dream.
But before you go scribbling out Shakespeare's name from your copy of King John, understand that this isn't an ironclad system, nor do the study's authors claim it is. Instead, they note that this study was intended to introduce 'a novel methodology for investigating the stylistic fingerprints of authorship' in a way that 'goes beyond analyzing isolated words, encompassing intricate patterns across multiple linguistic structures.'
Earlier tests they cite in their study show that a work appearing in cluster 1 doesn't mean with absolute certainty that it's not written by its attributed author. For example, an early test fed the neural network some works by the authors Charles Dickens and John Galsworthy. 'The distribution of works within the clusters accurately reflects their original authorship,' the team behind the study wrote wrote. 'Specifically, two of the three sections of 'A Christmas Carol' are attributed to Charles Dickens. In contrast, only one of the six parts of 'Flowering Wilderness' is included in this category.' But nobody should come away from reading this study becoming a 'one-third of A Christmas Carol' truthers or anything like that. Dickens' authorship of that famous story isn't in doubt, nor is the aforementioned Galsworthy's of Flowering Wilderness.
So, what could be causing this misidentification? The study cites another test run, this one feeding the neural network the works of essayist Francis Bacon and playwright Christopher Marlowe. This found a number of Bacon's essays falling into cluster 1. Their explanation? Not some second, false author posing as Bacon, but rather Bacon's own 'literary journey.' Bacon reworked and refined his Essays from 1597 to 1625, such that they 'span a spectrum of styles, from the straightforward and unadorned to the epigrammatic.' Therefore, a departure in literary style from one work to another doesn't necessarily mean a different authorial hand, but rather an artistic development playing out over years of trial and error, as well as personal growth.
Few authors with any prolific volume will sound identical to themselves from years earlier, especially if their work undergoes heavy revisions over time. Particularly in the case of a dramatist, revisions, rewordings, and entire reworkings of plays can occur based on rehearsals, collaborator suggestions, and audience reactions. So, while this method can point out that A Midsummer Night's Dream is linguistically distinct from the bulk of Shakespeare's other work, it can't say for sure whether that's because the play was written by a secret second author, or just a case of throwing in a riff on Apuleius' The Golden Ass to get an extra giggle or two out of an audience—even if it wasn't Shakespeare's usual style.
You Might Also Like
The Do's and Don'ts of Using Painter's Tape
The Best Portable BBQ Grills for Cooking Anywhere
Can a Smart Watch Prolong Your Life?
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Washington Post, NY Times columns insist Colbert cancelation is due to obsolete format, not politics
Washington Post, NY Times columns insist Colbert cancelation is due to obsolete format, not politics

Fox News

time9 hours ago

  • Fox News

Washington Post, NY Times columns insist Colbert cancelation is due to obsolete format, not politics

A pair of liberal media columns published this week dismissed the theory that the pending cancellation of "The Late Show with Stephen Colbert" is due to politics, arguing it's due to the decline of late-night programs and TV in general. A New York Times guest essay by Puck Media founding partner William Cohan and a column by The Washington Post's Megan McArdle insisted that Colbert's show was losing viewers and money due to people moving away from traditional TV — stating that's the "primary" reason for the cancellation. "That, and not Colbert's politics, is the primary thing you should be thinking about when you ask why the show was canceled. The great unbundling of the old networks and cable packages meant that late-night shows were no longer a hot media property but an economic liability," McArdle wrote on Wednesday. In his Tuesday piece, Cohan said, "I suspect Mr. Colbert's demise had more to do with the increasingly challenging economics of traditional late-night television than it did with bending the knee, yet again, to the Trump administration." The two opinions run contrary to those of Colbert defenders who have speculated that the late-night host's show is on the chopping block thanks to the liberal and anti-Trump content he puts into his show. CBS announced last Thursday that it would cancel "The Late Show" next May at the end of its broadcast season. The network clarified that the cancellation was "purely a financial decision against a challenging backdrop in late night," and noted, "It is not related in any way to the show's performance, content or other matters happening at Paramount." The news comes weeks after CBS and Paramount paid President Donald Trump a $16 million settlement following his lawsuit against the news network for airing an edited interview with former Vice President Kamala Harris ahead of the 2024 election. Puck News journalist Matt Belloni reported last week that the show "has been losing more than $40 million a year." McArdle corroborated the network's reason for canceling Colbert. She wrote that "The Late Show's" ratings "declined from 3.1 million viewers in the 2017-2018 season to 1.9 million last year, with only a couple hundred thousand viewers in the critical 18-49 segment that advertisers covet. Advertising dollars similarly fell by about 40 percent, driving the show to a reported $40 million loss." She continued, noting that the network would have been reluctant to cut Colbert's program if it was generating prestige and buzz. "But it would have been much harder to cancel a show that was making the network lots of money — or at least generating prestige and buzz. By the time CBS pulled the plug, late-night shows were no longer even doing that." Cohan argued that cutting Colbert was clearly a way for CBS's parent company, Paramount Global, to cut costs, as it has expressed it would do. "Last year, the company aimed to cut costs by $500 million and said it would reduce its work force by 15 percent, or by 2,000 employees," he wrote. "Just last month, it announced a work force reduction of an additional 3.5 percent. Mr. Colbert surely wouldn't have been outside the blast zone of these cuts, especially considering the show's losses." He continued, "While Mr. Colbert may still be No. 1 in late-night, many of us are not watching him on CBS at 11:35 at night. We're busy sleeping, or glued to TikTok or X or YouTube or whatever. The numbers prove that reality — the ratings for late-night shows across the board are way down in recent years." Cohan predicted the same fate will befall the other major network late night hosts.. "You can be sure that what happened to Mr. Colbert is a harbinger of what's to come for Jimmy Fallon, Jimmy Kimmel and Seth Meyers, I'm sorry to say." CBS did not immediately reply to Fox News Digital's request for comment.

'Anti-American sentiment' hurts 'Superman' at the international box office, James Gunn says
'Anti-American sentiment' hurts 'Superman' at the international box office, James Gunn says

Yahoo

time14 hours ago

  • Yahoo

'Anti-American sentiment' hurts 'Superman' at the international box office, James Gunn says

The DC Universe movie opened July 11. While the latest Superman has done incredibly well at home — to the tune of $253 million so far — the DC Universe movie hasn't flown quite so high in the rest of the world. Writer-director James Gunn has some theories about why. "Superman is not a known commodity in some places. He is not a big, known superhero in some places like Batman is. That affects things," Gunn told Rolling Stone this week, after he was asked why superhero films don't seem to be connecting with international audiences the same way they are in the United States. "And it also affects things that we have a certain amount of anti-American sentiment around the world right now. It isn't really helping us." The superhero film starring David Corenswet as the "Man of Steel, Rachel Brosnahan as Lois Lane, and Nicholas Hoult as Lex Luthor, won the box office in a landslide in its second weekend in theaters. In addition to its staggering domestic haul, the DC Universe pic has raked in $173 million internationally, for a total of over $426 million globally, as of Wednesday, according to President Donald Trump's administration has shaken up the world order by, for instance, withdrawing from treaties or alliances with other countries. Last month, Pew Research Center found that overall views on the country have dimmed in his second term, although it's unclear how that plays into moviegoers' choices. But Gunn was hopeful. "We're definitely performing better domestically than we are internationally, but internationally is also rising and having really good weekday numbers in the same way we are," he said. "So obviously the word of mouth is very positive both here and everywhere else, which is the thing that we needed to do the most. At the same time, there are certain countries in which it's really performing well: Brazil and the U.K."The director of other superhero films, including Marvel's Guardians of the Galaxy and DC's The Suicide Squad, noted that Superman had already seen a lot of success. He found it "incredibly overwhelming." Gunn, who took over DC Studios alongside Peter Safran in November 2022, is rebooting the DC universe with interconnected movies and TV shows scheduled years out. The duo's master plan — dubbed "Gods and Monsters" — technically started with last year's animated series Creature Commandos on Max. Though the show isn't crucial to the bigger picture, Superman and season 2 of Max original series Peacemaker (premiering Aug. 21) are "both pretty important in terms of getting to the bigger story," Gunn told EW for our June cover feature. The next DCU film queued for release is Supergirl: Woman of Tomorrow, starring Milly Alcock as Kal-El's cousin Kara Zor-El, on June 26, 2026, and a Wonder Woman movie is "being written right now," Gunn said. Read the original article on Entertainment Weekly

Stephen Colbert's cancellation is making Democrats furious!
Stephen Colbert's cancellation is making Democrats furious!

The Hill

timea day ago

  • The Hill

Stephen Colbert's cancellation is making Democrats furious!

Why is the Democratic Party so furious about Stephen Colbert's cancelation? That's a question I've been asking myself all week, ever since we learned that the late-night host is losing his show, after CBS decided that $40 million in losses each year is too high a price to pay. This really shouldn't come as much of a surprise to people: It's hard out there for large traditional television organizations. They now face all sorts of competition from streaming and social media, from independent people who are, in some cases, a lot funnier than Stephen Colbert and can do what late-night hosts do for a fraction of the cost. I say there's more fun to be had on YouTube, on TikTok, on Substack, on X and elsewhere. That's how more and more people are getting their entertainment and their news — and late night is going to have to catch up. It just doesn't have the same relevancy, or pack the same punch. So ultimately, this was quite clearly a business decision. But try telling them that. Colbert is certainly acting like this is Donald Trump's fault — isn't everything. In fact, he recently swore at Trump on air, and Jon Stewart went further, singing an entire profanity-laden song about how much he hates Trump. I won't play the clip, because my very patient producers are getting sick of having to bleep every video I've requested this week, between this and Hunter Biden. Now look — even Keith Olbermann, perhaps the most relentlessly partisan, anti-Trump, anti-Republican mainstream progressive commentator on the planet, thinks this was probably just a business decision. He wrote on X: 'If they fired him to appease Trump, why are they letting him remain on the air as a lame duck, with nobody to stop him saying whatever he wants, for the next TEN MONTHS? They may have timed it to use it as a sop to Trump but this is like Phil Donahue getting cancelled.' Donahue being another former commentator, one I quite liked, who was eventually put out to pasture for business reasons. When Keith Olbermann is providing you a much-needed sanity check, you should be very, very afraid. Ultimately, I don't really blame the other late-night hosts — Stewart, Kimmel, Fallon, etc. — for showing industry solidarity with Colbert. But why are Democratic politicians also so upset about the cancelation? And trust me, they are furious. Rep. Ted Lieu is actually circulating a petition telling CBS not to cancel Colbert. Doesn't he have more important things to do, possibly on behalf of his constituents? Sen. Bernie Sanders weighed in as well. Bernie writes on X: 'CBS's billionaire owners pay Trump $16 million to settle a bogus lawsuit while trying to sell the network to Skydance. Stephen Colbert, an extraordinary talent and the most popular late night host, slams the deal. Days later, he's fired. Do I think this is a coincidence? NO.' Again, he has no evidence whatsoever that this was anything other than a business decision. The show was a huge money loser! I know Bernie isn't a huge fan of capitalism, but generally, when you're losing tons of money, the business pivots. Perhaps under democratic socialism, we'd have subsidized terrible political comedy? And of course Sen. Elizabeth Warren is equally outraged. Seriously, she won't stop tweeting about this. Does anyone think for a minute that various Democratic politicians would be furious if a conservative news channel canceled a conservative show? Or even if a show like the one you're watching right now, 'Rising,' got axed? We speak to perspectives all over the place. I doubt it would matter to most Democratic officials, except maybe to a few friends of the program who've enjoyed being interviewed here. No, the reason the end of Colbert is so infuriating is because the Democratic Party likes the content: And the content of Colbert was reliably anti-Trump. It just wasn't very funny.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store