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

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

The Hill

time3 hours 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.

'South Park' mocks Paramount's settlement with Trump after creators sign $1.5B deal
'South Park' mocks Paramount's settlement with Trump after creators sign $1.5B deal

CNBC

time4 hours ago

  • CNBC

'South Park' mocks Paramount's settlement with Trump after creators sign $1.5B deal

Paramount announced Wednesday afternoon that the creators of "South Park" had agreed to produce 50 new episodes over the next five years in a deal reportedly valued at $1.5 billion. Ten hours later, "South Park" creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker excoriated Paramount — and aggressively skewered President Donald Trump — in the premiere episode of the Comedy Central show's 27th season. In the episode, Trump (voiced by Stone) sues the town of South Park for $5 billion after they push back on Jesus Christ's presence in their elementary school. The townspeople are prepared to fight back, but Jesus Christ (also voiced by Stone) urges them to settle. "You guys saw what happened to CBS? Yeah, well, guess who owns CBS? Paramount," Jesus Christ says at the episode's climax. "Do you really want to end up like Colbert?" Paramount is under intense scrutiny for appearing to kowtow to the Trump administration ahead of a proposed blockbuster merger. Stone and Parker were clearly riffing on their corporate parent's eventful summer. On July 2, Paramount agreed to pay $16 million to settle a lawsuit from Trump, who alleged that CBS' "60 Minutes" had deceptively edited an interview with former Vice President Kamala Harris. CBS denied that claim. On July 17, CBS announced that it planned to cancel "The Late Show with Stephen Colbert" in May, calling the move "purely a financial decision." But many of Colbert's fans cried foul, arguing that the comedian was being penalized for his years of anti-Trump humor. Both developments came as Paramount is preparing to be sold to Skydance Media, an entertainment production and finance company headed by David Ellison, the son of Oracle mogul (and Trump ally) Larry Ellison. The corporate tie-up requires federal approval. The premiere episode, titled "Sermon on the 'Mount," took aim at other satirical targets, including the supposed death of "wokeness," the rise of ChatGPT and the debate over Christian teachings in public schools. Trump and Paramount were the focal points, however. In one scene, "60 Minutes" reports on the social unrest roiling South Park amid Trump's lawsuit. The fictional hosts of the news show are visibly nervous as they introduce the segment, going out of their way to praise the president as "a great man." "We know he's probably watching," one of the hosts says. CBS is not the only network to reach a legal settlement with Trump. ABC agreed to pay $15 million as part of a settlement with Trump a month before he took office, effectively ending a case concerning alleged defamation. Paramount's settlement with Trump has drawn more attention, though. Colbert, three days before CBS announced the end of his show, blasted the arrangement as a "big fat bribe." Jon Stewart, the host of Comedy Central's "The Daily Show," also assailed the deal. Paramount owns CBS, a venerable Hollywood movie studio, a suite of cable brands (including Comedy Central) and the Paramount+ streaming platform. "South Park" is widely known for jabbing politicians and social trends across the ideological spectrum. But the latest episode's depiction of Trump arguably went further than usual. Stone and Parker depict Trump as a petulant child, recycling the animation style they used for Saddam Hussein in the 1999 film "South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut." They also make profane references to the president's anatomy. "Sermon on the 'Mount" closes with an apparently AI-generated video of Trump wandering in a desert and removing his clothes. Paramount spokespeople did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the episode.

Hungary bans Irish rap group Kneecap from the country
Hungary bans Irish rap group Kneecap from the country

UPI

time5 hours ago

  • UPI

Hungary bans Irish rap group Kneecap from the country

The Hungarian government has banned Irish rap group Kneecap from the country for 'for antisemitism and glorifying terrorm,' on Thursday. Photo by Hugo Philpott/UPI | License Photo July 24 (UPI) -- The Hungarian government has banned Irish rap group Kneecap from the country "for anti-Semitism and glorifying terrorism," on Thursday. "This is what we call service by public notice. In plain English: if you won't read the letter, you'll see it on the poster," international spokesman Zoltan Kovacs posted on X. Kneecap members have accused Israel of committing war crimes in Gaza and supporting Iranian militant groups. Israel denied these claims. The group's lead singer Mo Chara has allegedly displayed a flag in support of Hezbollah and has been charged with a terror offense in the U.K. he has denied doing this. "This isn't just protest it's support for terror, celebration of extremist violence and a clear anti‑Semitic statement," Kovacs wrote on X. "Granting them a stage normalizes hate and terror, and puts democratic values on the line." The group was going to perform at the Sziget Festival in Budapest on Aug 11. "This is an unprecedented move which we believe is both unnecessary and regrettable," Sziget organizers said on social media.

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