If you want to ignite a firestorm among scholars of English literature, just bring up the possibility that the author of the works that now constitute the Shakespeare canon were not written by the historical figure William Shakespeare but by another author who, for whatever reason, chose to be anonymous and had him act as a front. To keep the issue under discussion clear, some people refer to the author of the canon as the Bard and to the historical figure as William Shakespeare, so that the question can be formulated as to whether the Bard was William Shakespeare or someone else.
One would think that the issue would have been resolved by now but part of the problem is that although many doubts can be raised as to Shakespeare being the Bard, the alternatives also have problems. Furthermore, one could analyze the question from different disciplines such as literature, history, and linguistics, each with their own methodologies, and arrive at different conclusions.
Elizabeth Winkler is the latest to enter into this minefield with a new book, according to this article.
The doubters point to Shakespeare’s lack of higher education and aristocratic background and the scarcity of personal documents and literary evidence directly linking him to the works. Some suggest candidates such as Francis Bacon, Christopher Marlowe or Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford, as potential authors of Shakespeare’s plays.
It would of course have been the hoax of the millennium: no need to fake a moon landing. The theory remains decidedly fringe, outside the mainstream academic consensus and, as Winkler puts it, “not permitted”. In her book, Shakespeare Was a Woman and Other Heresies, she writes that “it has become the most horrible, vexed, unspeakable subject in the history of English literature.
“In literary circles, even the phrase ‘Shakespeare authorship question’ elicits contempt – eye-rolling, name-calling, mudslinging. If you raise it casually in a social setting, someone might chastise you as though you’ve uttered a deeply offensive profanity. Someone else might get up and leave the room. Tears may be shed. A whip may be produced. You will be punished, which is to say, educated. Because it is obscene to suggest that the god of English literature might be a false god. It is heresy.”
But Winkler not only looks at the authorship question but also at why this topic arouses such strong passions on all sides, and why defenders of Shakespeare as the Bard are so determined to rebut any challenge to his authorship. After all, there is nothing really tangible involved in the answer, either money or other forms of reward. We have the canon. Shouldn’t that be enough?
Her book makes three compelling arguments: tying the authorship question to the rise and fall of imperial Britain and its need for national mythmaking; exploring how Shakespeare was turned into a secular god, with theatre filling the vacuum left by the decline of the church; and challenging the basic human need to cling to belief when doubt might be the proper response.
Her central point is not the authorship question itself but the ecosystem of egos, vested interests, literary feuds and cultish bardolatry that has grown up around it. We meet Stratfordians who defend Shakespeare’s genius with religious intensity and zeal and anti-Stratfordians who respond with a contrarian ferocity worthy of atheist Richard Dawkins. This is one fight with little room for agnostics.
Winkler writes: “The authorship question is a massive game of Clue played out over the centuries. The weapon is a pen. The crime is the composition of the greatest works of literature in the English language. The suspects are numerous. The game is played in back rooms and basements, beyond the purview of the authorities.
“Now and then, reports of the game surface in the press, and the authorities (by which I mean the Shakespeare scholars) are incensed. They come in blowing their whistles and stomping their feet, waving their batons wildly.”
…“In some ways, the authorship question is an interdisciplinary subject. It’s not actually a subject just for English literature scholars whose training is in literary analysis. They’re literary critics. They don’t have the same methodological training often as historians, although they would probably get mad at me for saying that.
“They certainly don’t have training in all these other fields that the author seems to be knowledgable about. There’s a sense in which the authorship question should be attacked in an interdisciplinary space, and instead because it’s seen as just the purview of Shakespeare scholars and only they are the authorities – that’s the problem.”
This is the kind of academic dispute that people outside academia find hard to comprehend since there are really no consequences whatsoever that depend upon the answer. It is about as pure a theoretical question as one might imagine. But for scholars in the field, the search for truth and accuracy can take on an outsize value that has little to do with any practical concerns.
Suggestion: “all sides” are, every single one of them, so rich and privileged in their day-to-day lives that they literally have nothing important to worry about.
For values of “all sides” which are strictly limited to a tiny minority of obsessive wierdos.
I have some doubts whether it’s even that hot a topic “among scholars of English literature”… Sure, those likely to express an opinion on the subject unprompted are likely to express a strong one, but I suspect (although I have no evidence) that if you actually surveyed a representive sample of the population in quesion, you’ll probably find that most just aren’t that invested in the argument. Somewhat like Jesus mythicism… But then I don’t hang out in such circles, so I may well be entirely wrong. It just sounds a lot like a a confected, overblown storm-in-a-teacup promoted by people who just co-incidentally happen to have a new book out on the subject. Again, somewhat like Jesus mythicism.
Or people who know a thing or two about the subject are just fed up with the constant stream of wild theories which produce more problems than they solve. To some, this exasperation comes off as enforcement of orthodoxy.
I think that David Mitchell brilliantly answered the question a few years ago. 🙂
https://youtu.be/AG14YKyyb7A
This has gone quite far enough. It’s time to come clean. It was me, I wrote all of it.
I’ve heard that many agree a few of the minor plays came from a different goose-quill than the others, but don’t have time today to chase that particular chimera very far.
Isaac Asimov, in one of his endless stream of essays, proved to his own satisfaction that one of said lesser plays (in which two lovers look at the stars and one mansplains 16th-century cosmology) could not have been written by Bacon, as the latter would have recited a more-up-to-date version of astronomical models.
Every entry into this debate requires Richard Lederer: Did William Shakespeare Really Write Shakespeare?
Why not just think Ben Jonson would have said Will wasn’t the author if he had any doubt; instead-forget the nutters.
(the Lord Chamberlain’s/King’s Men) staged six of Jonson’s plays (Every Man In His Humour, Every Man Out of His Humour, Sejanus, Volpone, The Alchemist and Catiline) while Shakespeare was alive, and Jonson records that Shakespeare himself acted in the first and third of these ”
And we have:
Author, Mr. William Shakespeare
BY BEN JONSON
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;
‘Tis true, and all men’s suffrage. But these ways
Were not the paths I meant unto thy praise;
For seeliest ignorance on these may light,
Which, when it sounds at best, but echoes right;
Or blind affection, which doth ne’er advance
The truth, but gropes, and urgeth all by chance;
Or crafty malice might pretend this praise,
And think to ruin, where it seem’d to raise.
These are, as some infamous bawd or whore
Should praise a matron; what could hurt her more?
But thou art proof against them, and indeed,
Above th’ ill fortune of them, or the need.
I therefore will begin. Soul of the age!
The applause, delight, the wonder of our stage!
My Shakespeare, rise! I will not lodge thee by
Chaucer, or Spenser, or bid Beaumont lie
A little further, to make thee a room:
Thou art a monument without a tomb,
And art alive still while thy book doth live
And we have wits to read and praise to give.
That I not mix thee so, my brain excuses,
I mean with great, but disproportion’d Muses,
For if I thought my judgment were of years,
I should commit thee surely with thy peers,
And tell how far thou didst our Lyly outshine,
Or sporting Kyd, or Marlowe’s mighty line.
And though thou hadst small Latin and less Greek,
From thence to honour thee, I would not seek
For names; but call forth thund’ring Aeschylus,
Euripides and Sophocles to us;
Pacuvius, Accius, him of Cordova dead,
To life again, to hear thy buskin tread,
And shake a stage; or, when thy socks were on,
Leave thee alone for the comparison
Of all that insolent Greece or haughty Rome
Sent forth, or since did from their ashes come.
Tri’umph, my Britain, thou hast one to show
To whom all scenes of Europe homage owe.
He was not of an age but for all time!
And all the Muses still were in their prime,
When, like Apollo, he came forth to warm
Our ears, or like a Mercury to charm!
Nature herself was proud of his designs
And joy’d to wear the dressing of his lines,
Which were so richly spun, and woven so fit,
As, since, she will vouchsafe no other wit.
The merry Greek, tart Aristophanes,
Neat Terence, witty Plautus, now not please,
But antiquated and deserted lie,
As they were not of Nature’s family.
Yet must I not give Nature all: thy art,
My gentle Shakespeare, must enjoy a part.
For though the poet’s matter nature be,
His art doth give the fashion; and, that he
Who casts to write a living line, must sweat,
(Such as thine are) and strike the second heat
Upon the Muses’ anvil; turn the same
(And himself with it) that he thinks to frame,
Or, for the laurel, he may gain a scorn;
For a good poet’s made, as well as born;
And such wert thou. Look how the father’s face
Lives in his issue, even so the race
Of Shakespeare’s mind and manners brightly shines
In his well-turned, and true-filed lines;
In each of which he seems to shake a lance,
As brandish’d at the eyes of ignorance.
Sweet Swan of Avon
I am so willing to believe that it is tied to national myth-making, empire, whatever. So much of our irrational ideas are bound to religion, nationalism, and other ideologies that get us emotionally aroused. We feel more important to ourselves when we identify with a project larger than ourselves. So much of our “thinking” is driven by us satisfying our egos.
@kenbakermn, 5:
You are Mr. Norman Voles of Gravesend, And I Claim My Five Pounds.
Recently I read Mark Twain’s take on the question. He was quite convinced that Shakespeare was not “the Bard”. He seemed to favor Francis Bacon as the true author of the plays. His case is quite convincing, provided that you don’t look at any opposing viewpoints.
I think current AI tech could be used to determine the likelihood that any given piece of Shakespeare-attributed text is the work of another author.
Discrepancies would show up.
I know of multiple such analyses made via computer (but, obs, human algorithms).
If the corpus is likely enough from a single writer, then the (by far) most likely explanation is that it was indeed the attributed author.
This approach has pitfalls, to put it gently. When you say ‘human algorithms’ do you mean to rule out the likes of OpenAI?
Basically, yes. When I say ‘human algorithms’ I mean stuff like https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/1990/04/21/computer-test-authenticates-shakespeare/c46e572b-36f6-4d61-98b9-649b1e658ade/
OpenAI uses LLM, which is effectively an algorithm, but consider the distinction between a machine made product and a handcrafted product.
cf. https://www.ibm.com/cloud/blog/ai-vs-machine-learning-vs-deep-learning-vs-neural-networks
It’s true -- The Federalist Society wrote them for Shakespeare to publish. But it’s OK because he’s a family friend.
OpenAI uses LLM, which is effectively an algorithm
No, it’s not. It’s a “model” -- a dataset created by running non-algorithmic data through an algorithm. There is an algorithm in the generative module but your claim is akin to saying “a car is basically a tire.”
I think current AI tech could be used to determine the likelihood that any given piece of Shakespeare-attributed text is the work of another author.
William Friedman, legendary cryptographer and author of The Index of Coincidence and many still classified works on statistical cryptanalysis, got his start when a wealthy Shakespeare crank hired him to answer that question. Friedman invented a new science and it broke many ciphers -- but he never satisfactorily answered the Shakespeare question. This was all pre-computer. NSA’s subsequent work on semantic forests probably would bear on the question. But why?
So do the Shakespeare authorship conspiracies also take into account handwriting analysis?
It would seem that not only did the writing attribution have to be faked, but the writings plausibly forged -- or the real author had to give the manuscripts to Will to re-copy exactly. Complicated plot.
@13, re:15 -- do you never get bored of being made to look like an ignorant prick by people who actually know about the things you pretend knowledge of?
Marcus:
Nope. It’s akin to saying a car is basically a machine.
(How is that algorithm integrated? Perhaps some, um code?)
Because people find it of interest, as you noted, even in pre-computer days.
—
sonofrojblake:
For me to get bored of it, it would have to actually happen.
(Tell you what, have a go. I could use a good chuckle)
Problematic; cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakespeare%27s_handwriting
https://proxy.freethought.online/singham/2023/06/28/justice-alito-and-the-wall-street-journal/#comment-5201913
Heh. You imagine that makes me look like an ignorant prick?
(Take your solace where you can, I suppose)
That specific example… ignorant yes, prick no.
How is it ignorant, Holms? What are the main political parties in the UK?
Which one gets the most benefit from a paper where the OPs are pro-business and pro-profit?
(And, as usual, we end up talking about me instead of about the topic at hand.
Clearly, for some people, I am much more interesting)
How is that algorithm integrated? Perhaps some, um code?
Ass. I said there is an algorithm present. But the model part of an LLM is data. In computing there is a useful distinction between executable code and data, because it’s a useful distinction. For example, AI applications like Stable Diffusion and ChatGPT generally consist of an execution framework (which has algorithms) and a knowledge-base/data set/model built from analysis of existing stuff into a tree of conditional probabilities, or a neural net, or a markov chain, or a semantic forest or whatever. It’s not an algorithm, it’s the results of analysis of the outputs of algorithms. That was why I said it’s like calling a tire a car. Or perhaps an orchestra sitting silent “Beethoven’s 9th” -- its when the execution engine (the orchestra) plays the score (the knowledge base) for Beethoven’s 9th that we say it’s a performance of Beethoven’s 9th.
I can tell you don’t know jack shit about any of this, or you would not have said something as foolish as you said. You don’t know what the fuck you are talking about and, as you so often do, you’re slinging word salad to avoid having to (god forbid) accept that you spoke wrongly in ignorance. What an irritating wanker you are.
(Ps -- Turing machines treat data and code as the same thing because its a useful abstraction, and there are some examples of self-modifying code, but in this case the separation between code and data is very strong. For example ChatGPT can use a different training set and it might sound completely different. When AI systems “upgrade” its often a change to the scope of the model not the executable that drives it. The most recent release of Midjourney is a model with deeper training on hands, for example. Not code.)
Clearly, for some people, I am much more interesting
Don’t flatter yourself. The fact that prople wish you’d shut up or fuck off doesn’t mean you are interesting. It means people are actually not interested in you at all.
Heh, Marcus.
You think you can tell. Not the same thing. Don’t flatter yourself 😉
Note I wrote “effectively an algorithm” specifically to account for possible disputed definition of such; after all, others might have quite the restrictive definition of an algorithm. A functional, not a descriptive claim, actually.
Let’s see: <clickety-click>
“The chatbot’s foundation is the GPT large language model (LLM), a computer algorithm that processes natural language inputs and predicts the next word based on what it’s already seen.”
(Computerworld)
“A large language model, or LLM, is a deep learning algorithm that can recognize, summarize, translate, predict and generate text and other […]”
(Nvidia)
“The past few years have held another flavor of surprise. An AI technique explored for decades, deep learning, started achieving state-of-the-art results in a wide variety of problem domains. In deep learning, rather than hand-code a new algorithm for each problem, you design architectures that can twist themselves into a wide range of algorithms based on the data you feed them.”
(OpenAI)
Plenty more like that. All totally wrong, of course, in your estimation.
(I mean, OpenAI calls it an architecture, not an algorithm))
—
Tell you what, Marcus (and I know you’ve claimed in the past you don’t read my comments, since they’re boring) — care to define what an algorithm is, however specifically? Then we can discuss whether something that functions effectively an algorithm corresponds to that specific definition.
The obvious and inescapable fact is that, on a thread about Shakesperian attribution, you are addressing me and the discussion is all about me and my merit. You can wish I’d “shut up or fuck off ” all you want, but when the thread becomes about me, and your comments become about me, it’s not flattering myself — it’s a recognition of reality.
I put it to you that your proclamation of a purported lack of interest is vitiated by your ongoing engagement.
Kinda looking at what you do, instead going by what you write.
—
Anyway, are you disputing the initial claim I made?
You know, about using what is called AI to scratch the itch about the authorship of the material attributed to Shakespeare.
(I see you’re keen on trying to condemn me, but that has never ended well for anyone who tries it. Obs, I can’t stop you, but it’s kinda revealing about you)
PS Marcus:
Yes, and there’s also self-modifying code, where that distinction becomes… problematic.
(I did snigger a bit when I read that you think there is an useful distinction because it’s an useful distinction)
Someone (an SF writer?) wrote a squib “proving” that not only did Francis Bacon write “Shakespeare’s plays”, but Shakespeare wrote Bacon’s scientific works. In Don Marquis’ Archy and Mehitabel there’s a poem in which Shakespeare laments having to waste his time and talents writing populist trash (the plays) for money, when he could have been quite a decent sonneteer.
Sorry, corrected version:
A claim you made in that thread was that the Financial Times was pro-Tory. The linked comment was your acceptance of correction on that claim. An example of ignorance (in the simple sense of lacking knowledge), but not prickishness as your comment was (surprisingly!) free of your usual bad grace.
Perhaps if you did not let ego take the wheel and refrained from taking the opportunity for an argument once in a while…
…
LOL! Internet Guy thinks his disdainful comments make an impact anywhere whatsoever.
Evidently, talking about me is more interesting than talking about Shakespeare.
Only functionally, not overtly.
Well, there’s this thing where people feel it is much more important to discuss me and my perceived failures than to discuss the topic at hand.
I note Marcus, to his credit, realised he was doing that and desisted.
You, not so much.
Either way.
You take any opportunity to argue and snipe at others. Naturally this places you in a great many arguments. A good example is noted immediately above, where sonof called you an ignorant prick with citation, and I actually defended you (!) from the ‘prick’ half of that… and now you’re quibbling over whether being completely wrong about the Financial Times counts as an example of ignorance because of a distinction that has no bearing on the question of the state of your knowledge.
And the way you choose to play it is of course the most egotistical way possible: all these arguments are evidence of fascination with you. But this is only true in your own head.
You think you’ve seen the last of Marcus ‘trying to condemn [you]’… on the basis of his lack of a reply to a days old thread? Anyway, I was talking about the ‘has never ended well for anyone that tries [to condemn you]’ silliness.
Heh heh heh. Sure, let’s talk about me, and about me only. Such is my ego!
Either way what? Obviously, not overtly, but yes functionally.
(Too recondite for you?)
Oh yes, I’m doing it right now. Thanks for the opportunity. 🙂
(Appreciate it)
Tell me more about me! I am indeed a fascinating subject upon which to spend time.
And on this very thread. And in reality.
(Do go on…)
Hey, you’re the one who brought him up. Remember?
“LOL! Internet Guy thinks his disdainful comments make an impact anywhere whatsoever.”
As I noted, credit to him for desisting.
And remember, it is you who asserts that I take any opportunity to argue and snipe at others, so obviously if you believe that you must perforce believe that, if anything, I would welcome the opportunity to further argue with them. Right?
(Good stuff, keep it up!)
Yet, here you are, being exactly, precisely and specifically as silly as that — trying to condemn me.
(Surely you will be the exception)
—
Anyway, waiting with baited breath for your next effort at talking about me.
(I do merit it, don’t I?)
Jesus christ.
Either way, you were wrong. Wrong to think the FT supports Tories overtly, and wrong to think it supports them functionally. Or are you going back on accepting Dunc’s correction? That would be a shame, it was one of the only times you have ever exhibited something like grace on these pages.
No need to thank me for opportunities to argue when you snipe anyway, but you can hardly deny being a troll when you admit you see disagreement as an “opportunity” for argument.
I didn’t “bring Marcus up”, I referenced your comment to him and the silliness contained in that quoted text. The comment happened to be directed at him, but the silliness was all yours.
If you believe this is indicated by my replying to you, it follows the same applies to your replies to me. Thanks, but then the fascination is all one way, as I do not happen to share that mindset.
I assert, and you prove the assertion right. And you will prove it right again by making an even bigger thing of this thread.
No, the silly bit was the implication that your sniping somehow constitutes things ‘not ending well’ for the people that take issue with you.
Exactly, Holms. Me, me, me.
(you: me, me, me, too)
Now, now. Shakespeare. Wrong famous person there.
But that was the correction! Go back and read it.
(Quite important, you know. Remember, it’s about me)
Such special occasions, those are!
(Gotta keep ’em special)
Only a troll would respond to you, right?
Well, only a troll… or me! Or someone else, but hey, I can see how I matter.
Actually, Marcus brought Marcus up first. Responding to me, of course.
(Shakespeare? Not quite as relevant as I)
Master of silliness, I.
(Your job, should you accept it, is to worship me at every turn)
Aww. So, you are not fascinated by me?
(Coulda fooled me. Wait — you did fool me! How droll!)
Oh, right. A big thing I’m making.
Of this thread, even!
(Aren’t you O so satisfied to be proven right? Such is ego)
Ah yes, my sniping.
Very silly, but very important to discuss.
Don’t worry, it’s gonna end up well for you. I mean, so far, so good, no? 😉
And look, it’s ended up well for Marcus! A bit like stopping bashing one’s head against a brick wall, it’s quite the pleasant experience when one stops.
—
You are spending your time wisely, but. I mean, not like Shakespeare can appreciate your lack of interest in him, whereas I can appreciate your fascination with me.
Thanks.
No it wasn’t. Your statement there reads “Pierce, same with the Financial Times in the UK. Pro Tory.” That is, the Financial Times is pro Tory in the same sense that Pierce was speaking of.
So, what was Pierce speaking of? Well, he had just said to RagingBee “The Washington (Moonie) Times gets caught regularly slanting their “news” — mostly by omission, which rarely gets attention beyond the media monitors, rather than blatant fabrication. Dunno much about the Economist…” Pierce gave a clear descrition of bias of the functional sort. Editorial selectiveness in reporting rather than overt.
Therefore your claim was that the Financial Times was pro Tory in the functional sense. Dunc’s correction to you was in reply to that specific claim, and he rebutted it with multiple references to them being functionally anti-Tory.
Summary for the scattered:
You claimed the Financial Times was functionally pro-Tory
Dunc rebutted this with specific examples of them being functionally anti-Tory
You accepted that rebuttal as a refutation
Sonofrojblake cited that exchange as an example of you being an “ignorant prick”
I defended you from the prick half of that accusation
You demanded to know how that exchange could be considered an example of your ignorance
I briefly explained
You defended your claim by stating it was only a claim of functional Tory support, rather than overt
And now I have reminded you that even your claim of function support was refuted by Dunc, and you accepted it as such.
Shorter summary: you were wrong about a thing, and you have been arguing ever since about whether that constitutes an example of ignorance.
If you look at what I said, and actually read the words, you’ll see that this is not a reasonable inference. Here, my words again but with some of them emphasised:
“No need to thank me for opportunities to argue when you snipe anyway, but you can hardly deny being a troll when you admit you see disagreement as an “opportunity” for argument.”
Did you catch that? You admit you see disagreement as an “opportunity” for argument. That is what reveals you to be a troll.
You reveal, again, that you believe replying to a person indicates fascination with that person.
…And you’re replying to me.
@ 27 Morales
I dunno, man. I reckon that time you voluntarily exiled yourself from Pharyngula for a couple of years to avoid the banhammer was widely considered a damn good result.
I know, Silentbob, after I returned, I became this gentler, less abrasive person that you now see.
I am quite interesting, and my achievements are notable enough that people pop into threads to spruik them.
—
Nothing like as uninteresting as the Shakespeare controversy, eh?
Ive decided on a new posting policy, to save time and improve clarity. I invite any who sees value in it to do similar.
@John Morales : shut up and fuck off.
Still another one who wants to talk about me, rather than the subject at hand.
(It’s supposed to be the Shakespeare controversy, not my controversy)