Shakespeare: so who wrote his stuff?

[Jekyll]

You should submit your critique to the magazine, or write your own article, and see what the response is.

From what I can tell from the article, they did do more than "just" count words and sentence length.

I think you misunderstood me. I was talking about the feature set and not the analysis of the data.

The article you linked to performed PCA on the number occurrences of function words in text blocks.
The program you linked to counted word occurrences and sentence length.

On the other hand the use of Markov chains to capture sentence structure has been kicking about since Shannon mentioned it in passing in 'A Mathematical Theory of Communication'. It is a sufficient statistic to capture convincingly the voice of a person*, and it and its cousins such as string kernels are used in contemporary textural analysis. I'm not aware that the methods have spread to author identification however and it would be nice to see that they had.

*Complexity wrote a bot which mimicked Interesting Ian with it.

 

[Mercutio]

I can see that this could prove all of Shakespere's works were written by the same person, but how would it prove that this person was actually the man we know as Shakespere? Do we have extensive writings we know for a fact were written by him to use as a comparison?

The article I read used a nifty prediction based on a cognitive theory of spreading activation. Basically, they looked at the frequency of rare words, comparing the words known to have been spoken by Shakespeare the actor in a given play (there are a few roles we know for a fact that he played, and when he played them) during the time he was writing another play. The rare words spoken by other actors were also examined. They predicted that the rare words in Shaky's character would be more readily available to him while writing, such that these words would be used more often in the play he was writing, when compared to the rare words in other actors' parts. This was indeed the case.

Then, just for fun, they tried running the analysis backward to see if they could deduce some of the parts Shakes might have been playing (for plays where we have no record of what his role was) while he wrote some other plays. Turns out that the method does make specific predictions in this use, and that (while not conclusive proof) the roles deduced were indeed the sort of roles that fit his style. In at least one case, the method pointed to two different roles in one play; in that case, though, the roles were never on stage at the same time, and could easily have been played by the same actor (and likely were, given the theatre of the day).

So this is indeed a speculative analysis, but they did make very specific predictions which were falsifiable (in the first part, anyway). Compared to the elaborate constructions needed to show some other person as writing the plays, this is relatively straightforward, and quite elegant.

 

[Mercutio]

1 - Have a link or other ref. to this evidence?

The report I read was years ago in the Atlantic Monthly, which reported on the work of others. I will try to dig up a solid reference for you, though.

 

[bigred]

Oh, the monkeys are in the private sector. They wish they worked for the government, because then they'd get a lot more paid holidays, as well as job security so tight it approaches old-school tenure.

It would take a monkey to want to work for the gov't. Either that or someone tragically naive about working for the gov't. Anyway......

Doing internet searches for "Shakespeare vs De Vere" continues to prove frustrating to me. Most are highly biased one way or the other and most just aren't very well formatted/presented IMO. But I maintain De Vere has a very legit claim to having written at least some of "his" works, though not convinced either way.

But the idea of dissmissing the (reasonable) possibility is no less foolish than embracing it as definite truth. IMO those who do have closed their minds simply because they find the possibility unpleasant for whatever reason.

 

[bigred]

Replying to responses in the other thread:

Its Byron's fault: After he did his poetic stuff in the 19th century, every Victorian snot was convinced that decent historical poets had to be educated, upper-class, and tormented. The idea that a mere son of a glovemaker was able to write this wonderful stuff was abhorrent to them. So they played with lucicrous Cryptographic games (counting the words per page in a technique that makes the Bible Code look logical) until they found the hidden messages they wanted.

"Others wrote Shakespeare's stuff" people are actually revisionists trying to rewrite history to suit their modern tastes.

Or perhaps its simply people who see some inconsistencies and think there's enough evidence to raise reasonable doubt. Perish the thought that you even consider the possibility for a moment. PS and oh btw it's more than " playing with lucicrous Cryptographic games," at least in the case of De Vere IMO.

To believe that Shakespeare was someone else requires not only snobbery and a certain obliviousness to the actual opportunities that would have been available to a person of his status, but also requires that a great number of his contemporaries, friends, rivals and business associates were in on a conspiracy which would seem not to have been of any advantage to them.

? Because............

Even if the opportunity to become so worldly and sophisticated were not available generally to a person of Shakespeare's circumstances, the author of this stuff was obviously a rare genius whose capabilities outstripped normal productive possibilities. I think that such a person could have risen from even lower circumstances to achieve such things.

I quite agree. Key word there though is it's possible - not a given.

Plenty of geniuses seem to be a little irascible, or eccentric.

? "Seem to be?" Heck I thought it was pretty much a given. Even so, I don't see all that as relevant.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Monkeys don't work overtime. They'll clock in on a Saturday, sure. But then they just sit in their cubicles, surfing the net, getting paid time and half to do it. What's worse, they sometimes use that time to look for better-paid jobs online!

No wonder Ook-Ook has been working on his poo-flinging skills!

 

[Dave1001]

The article I read used a nifty prediction based on a cognitive theory of spreading activation. Basically, they looked at the frequency of rare words, comparing the words known to have been spoken by Shakespeare the actor in a given play (there are a few roles we know for a fact that he played, and when he played them) during the time he was writing another play. The rare words spoken by other actors were also examined. They predicted that the rare words in Shaky's character would be more readily available to him while writing, such that these words would be used more often in the play he was writing, when compared to the rare words in other actors' parts. This was indeed the case.

Then, just for fun, they tried running the analysis backward to see if they could deduce some of the parts Shakes might have been playing (for plays where we have no record of what his role was) while he wrote some other plays. Turns out that the method does make specific predictions in this use, and that (while not conclusive proof) the roles deduced were indeed the sort of roles that fit his style. In at least one case, the method pointed to two different roles in one play; in that case, though, the roles were never on stage at the same time, and could easily have been played by the same actor (and likely were, given the theatre of the day).

So this is indeed a speculative analysis, but they did make very specific predictions which were falsifiable (in the first part, anyway). Compared to the elaborate constructions needed to show some other person as writing the plays, this is relatively straightforward, and quite elegant.

fascinating

 

[Mercutio]

Thanks, K!

The Atlantic Monthly Article: http://www.enotes.com/shakespearean-criticism/authorship-controversy/tom-bethell-essay-date-1991 -SOURCE: "Looking for Shakespeare: Two Partisans Explain and Debate the Authorship Question," in The Atlantic Monthly, Vol. 268, No. 4, October, 1991, pp. 43-61.
or possibly the article by Irwin Matus in the same October 1991 edition.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shakespeare/debates/stratfordmonument.html - documentary that cites Bethell in an interview.


Some other useful recent findings:
http://www.umass.edu/newsoffice/newsreleases/articles/39476.php - Computerized Analysis Helps Researchers Define Shakespeare's Work Using "Literary Fingerprint" - 2006
same news: http://www.physorg.com/news78593028.html - Computerized Analysis Helps Researchers Define Shakespeare's Work Using 'Literary Fingerprint'
http://extra.shu.ac.uk/emls/08-1/craistyl.htm -Common-words frequencies, Shakespeare's style, and the Elegy by W. S.- Hugh Craig, University of Newcastle, New South Wales

http://www.utpjournals.com/product/utq/683/683_lancashire.html - " Convergence zones maintained Shakespeare's memories as networks. Memories would have been retrieved from long-term storage either consciously or unconsciously. For conscious retrieval, he would not have been able to look up a zone's address directly but would have had to probe his mind with related sounds, ideas, and experiences. Each probe would act as a prime to which he would have consciously attended. Spreading activation is one theory of long-term semantic memory recall consistent with the reaction times observed in persons engaged in semantic tasks (Collins and Loftus; Chang). It predicts that stimulating or priming any one long-term memory will have a ripple effect on every other memory networked to it. Happening on one feature increases the chances of activating the connected network of memories that encodes that feature. Recent research qualifies this hypothesis. Intentionally priming oneself will only retrieve words or images related to the semantic meaning one is after: for example, priming with the word 'palm' in the hope of raising memories related to the meaning 'hand' will not elicit anything related to the meaning 'tree.' Because almost any experience can prime memory, most priming is unattended or unconscious, and here, 'when primes are unattended, words related to either meaning appear to be facilitated.' Evidently the left hemisphere returns only strong associations to a prime, whereas the right hemisphere returns even weakly associated things (Posner and Raichle, 148–51)."

 

[Pyrrho]

Mark Twain's take on it:

http://users.telerama.com/~joseph/shake.html

Entertaining reading, if nothing else. Astute readers will note striking similarities to modern arguments about other topics.

 

[Skiltch]

http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/gutbook/lookup?num=1542

Project Gutenberg takes it as given that a guy named Fletcher helped out with Two Noble Kinsmen (I've seen this written elsewhere too, such as in my copy of TNK).

http://llc.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/9/3/235

And here's something from the oxford journals agreeing, using metrical analysis.

So far as I know, plays considered to have been mostly Shakespeare but not all are TNK, often Henry VIII, and sometimes Pericles.

 

[Skeptic]

An infinite number of monkeys

There old theory was that if you put an infinite number of monkey next to an infinite number of keyboards, eventually one of them will write Shakespeare's plays.

The internet had proven that that's not true.

 

[Skeptic]

One of the reasons for the "not Shakespeare" theory is the unintended consequences of the romantic movement.

In the late 18th to mid-19th century, the idea of the poet and author as "geniuses"--special beings chosen by providence and directly influenced by their muse, or the infinite, or the platonic ideal of beauty, or God, etc., was very popular (especially among poets and authors...).

From this point of view, the less educated and intelligent the author was, the greater his muse and genius, and the more worthy he is of worshipping, since such a person's brilliant writing had to be wholly due to his muse, and not due to him "cheating" by emulating other writers or learning about rhyme and metre.

So Shakespeare was made into an almost-illiterate rustic precisely in an attempt to make him into a universal genius, one who wrote all his plays in a fit of divine inspiration without help from any earthly source.

When people woke up from this nonsense, they unfortunately retained the belief that Shakespeare was an uneducated rustic, so it seemed reasonable to suppose that, in that case, he couldn't have written the plays attributed to him.

This would have been quite true, if Shakespeare the man was remotely as ignorant as he was made out to be by some of his Romantic admirers in an attempt of elevating Shakespeare the writer to divine levels.

In reality, however, Shakespeare was certainly well-educated for his time, formally and informally, and in particular well-educated enough to write the plays.

 

[NobbyNobbs]

I can see that this could prove all of Shakespere's works were written by the same person, but how would it prove that this person was actually the man we know as Shakespere? Do we have extensive writings we know for a fact were written by him to use as a comparison?

As my father used to tell me, "Shakespeare's plays were not written by Shakespeare, but rather by another man of the same name."

 

[drkitten]

But I maintain De Vere has a very legit claim to having written at least some of "his" works, though not convinced either way.

But the idea of dissmissing the (reasonable) possibility is no less foolish than embracing it as definite truth. IMO those who do have closed their minds simply because they find the possibility unpleasant for whatever reason.

On what basis do you state that "De Vere has a very legit claim to having written at least some of [Shakespeare's] works"?

I've done some research into the Shakespearean authorship debate -- and as far as I can tell, very few if any of the Stratfordians "dismiss" the possiblity of De Vere any more than they dismiss the possiblity of any other contemporary, say Boris Gudenov. But as far as I can tell, there's no actual evidence either that Shakespeare didn't write his own work, or that any one in particular did.

I can make exactly as strong a case for Elvis as I can for De Vere. Which is to say -- both cases are dead on arrival.

 

[bruto]

Replying to responses in the other thread:



Or perhaps its simply people who see some inconsistencies and think there's enough evidence to raise reasonable doubt. Perish the thought that you even consider the possibility for a moment. PS and oh btw it's more than " playing with lucicrous Cryptographic games," at least in the case of De Vere IMO.




? Because............


I quite agree. Key word there though is it's possible - not a given.


? "Seem to be?" Heck I thought it was pretty much a given. Even so, I don't see all that as relevant.

It's been a long time since I posted on the other thread, and don't have time now to go through it all again, but the point I was making before was that according to what I have read on the subject, Shakespeare was well known to his contemporaries, both friends and enemies, many of whom were involved in the production, editing and evolution of his work, and if he were not the author of his works, it seems unlikely that this could have gone unnoticed and unremarked for so long, and I do not perceive any advantage that would accrue to them all in conspiring to conceal the fakery. After all, even if some of his playwright friends thought it a useful ruse, that doesn't explain why nobody else seems to have come forward at the time. As far as I know, theories that Shakespeare didn't write his own stuff do not appear until well after his death.

As to the comment on irascible or eccentric geniuses, I can't remember to what that was responding, so I can't remember why I might have thought it relevant. I'm on a slow dialup connection, and about to hit the road. If I have time later I'll look up the old thread, if it matters.

I found Will in the World, by Stephen Greenblatt, very interesting, and recommend it to anyone who is interested in learning more about how Shakesepeare might have come to write the works of Shakespeare.

 

[NotJesus]

The problem with the case for the Earl of Oxford (Edward de Vere) is that, as with the other non-Stratfordian candidates, there's no actual evidence. None.

People who have a problem with the idea of Will Shakespeare as author go hunting around for candidates who better fit their ideas of what sort of person the author should be. They grab a guy like Oxford who seems plausible and they set about drawing connections between his life and the plays. E.g., several of Shakespeare's plays are set in Italy. As far as we know, Will Shakespeare didn't travel to Italy but, that's right, Eddie de Vere did! So they try to demonstrate that the plays show an intimate knowledge of Italy that could only belong to someone who'd actually been there. And the scenes of court life in the play show that the author must have been someone who was actually at court. And the legal bits in the plays show he had legal training. And on and on.

For the next step, just invent a reason the "real" author had to hide his identity and you're all set. In Oxford's case, he couldn't seen to be dirtying his hands with writing plays and poetry, being a big-shot earl and all, so he had to have a front man -- some hick named Shakespeare.

The odd thing is -- Oxford did produce poetry and plays under his own name. The plays don't survive but some of the poetry does and it's not as good as Shakespeare's. I guess he wanted his front man to have all the best stuff. Funny sort of guy.

 

[bigred]

On what basis do you state that "De Vere has a very legit claim to having written at least some of [Shakespeare's] works"?.

Don't care to spell it out here when it's easily findable on the 'net, to be honest.

I've done some research into the Shakespearean authorship debate -- and as far as I can tell, very few if any of the Stratfordians "dismiss" the possiblity of De Vere any more than they dismiss the possiblity of any other contemporary, say Boris Gudenov. But as far as I can tell, there's no actual evidence either that Shakespeare didn't write his own work, or that any one in particular did..

Remember "you can't prove a negative" blah de blah Yeah there's no definitive case made either way near as I can see.

I can make exactly as strong a case for Elvis as I can for De Vere.

Really? Pls procede. This should be interesting...

 

[drkitten]

Remember "you can't prove a negative" blah de blah Yeah there's no definitive case made either way near as I can see.

Cool. Elvis wrote Shakespeare! Woo-hoo!


Well, you can't prove he didn't. And the rest of the evidence is easily findable on the 'Net.

 

[bigred]

It's been a long time since I posted on the other thread, and don't have time now to go through it all again, but the point I was making before was that according to what I have read on the subject, Shakespeare was well known to his contemporaries, both friends and enemies, many of whom were involved in the production, editing and evolution of his work, and if he were not the author of his works, it seems unlikely that this could have gone unnoticed and unremarked for so long, and I do not perceive any advantage that would accrue to them all in conspiring to conceal the fakery.

For the moment have to take your word on what you say as I haven't seen much of anything on that either way. If so, I certainly see your point in the old "everyone hid the conspiracy" illogic. But (correct me if I'm wrong if anyone knows for sure) I thought "ghost writers" were not exactly uncommon at that time-? If so, I think it would've been easy enough to pull it off, esp back then....remember communication exchange back then was NOTHING like it is now. It was an infinitely smaller world, even within communities. And for all we know maybe there were rumours of such things which "whithered on the vine."

 

[Mercutio]