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

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Epoch Times
14 hours ago
- Epoch Times
3 Shakespeare One-Liners That Nail It
Shakespeare was a master of the English language, and we owe to him over 1,700 new words, which were either entirely invented by him (for example, 'lonely'), combined existing words in novel ways ('bedroom'), added prefixes or suffixes to existing words ('dauntless'), or simply changed the function of the traditional part of speech ('elbow' as a verb). Even personal names were invented by him—the name Jessica, for example, is recorded as first appearing in 'The Merchant of Venice.' This incredible linguistic fluency was, of course, one of the reasons why he was, and is, considered such a great poet, and why he remains the most widely quoted writer in the English language (though the Bible remains the most quoted source). It is easy, therefore, to quote ringing passages from his plays or poems.


USA Today
16 hours ago
- USA Today
Taylor Swift fantasy football team names: The 9 best we found for 2025
It's 2025 fantasy football season, which means it's time to prep your teams for the draft. First up? You need to pick that perfect team name. And for a third year in a row, we're giving you a list of the best Taylor Swift-themed fantasy team names. We've searched the world for something (see what I did there?) and came up with the best ones we could find while trying hard not to repeat too many from past years. So here they are, in no particular order, and like our list of best fantasy football team names, it's ones we could print and we linked out to those who listed them: Hurts Different I like it. Very simple! Tortured Joets Department Jonathan Taylor's Version Just made this one up myself! You Belong with Tee Solid, no notes. Anti-Hero RB Brilliant and also very insider-y given that Hero RB is a fantasy strategy. Twenty-Tua I'm a sucker for puns. This one is great. You Need to First Down You Bijan With Me There are an endless amount of Bijan Robinson team names. Who's Afraid of little CeeDee? Yes!


Fox News
a day ago
- Fox News
‘The View' faces mockery for booking 102 left-leaning guests and zero conservatives in 2025
ABC's "The View" came under fire as a partisan echo chamber after a study revealed the show had featured 102 left-leaning guests and zero conservatives so far in 2025. "It's an insane asylum now," Fox News contributor Guy Benson told "Fox & Friends." The Fox News Radio host dug into the notoriously anti-Trump show that was the subject of a study from Media Research Center's NewsBusters. The group analyzed every episode from January 6, when the program returned from a winter hiatus, through July 25, and found that it failed to book a single conservative guest to discuss politics. "I am actually surprised by this because 102 seems a little low," Benson quipped. "What's interesting [is]… the left talked for years about bringing back the fairness doctrine. This was an obsession of theirs to try to clamp down on the success of [conservative] talk radio. If they had succeeded and had gotten the fairness doctrine, 'The View' would be out of business for that reason alone. That would be basically illegal." The guest list included not only Democratic lawmakers but also liberal Hollywood stars. NewsBusters associate editor Nicholas Fondacaro previously told Fox News Digital that the closest to a conservative guest on "The View" this year was former California Republican Governor and self-proclaimed Harris 2024 voter Arnold Schwarzenegger, who appeared on the show last month. The co-hosts of "Fox & Friends" also weighed in, Thursday, unsurprised by the finding. "So 'The View' only has one view?" posited Ainsley Earhardt. Brian Kilmeade chimed in by calling it the "least surprising stat ever." "They used to be somewhat balanced," he said. "Barbara Walters started this to get some political points of view – no script – and just get a conversation going and let us know what women talk about when they're together. Then what happened? It ends up being an angry Democratic show." Lawrence Jones accused the show's co-hosts of being hostile toward right-leaning guests they have invited in the past. "When there is a conservative there, or even one of the co-panels, because there's always the one [right-leaning panelist] that they have… They're so nasty to the people of opposing views there," he said. "They say that they have a couple of independents there, but they find a way to always agree with the Democrats. It's not that Republicans don't want to come on the show, but when you go there, you've seen plenty of times where Whoopi Goldberg will walk off the set when someone of a opposing view joins the show." "The View" did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital's prior request for comment on the study. An ABC News insider, who said network bookers have met with Senate press secretaries from both sides of the aisle, pushed back on an earlier version of the study from April, which found that the ABC News program booked 63 liberal guests and zero conservatives. "This study seems to ascribe political leanings to guests even when politics were not discussed. Celebrity guests are not booked because of their political leanings; they are booked on the show to promote their projects," the insider told Fox News Digital in April.