Skip to: Content
Skip to: Site Navigation
Skip to: Search

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 2009
| Subscribe to Newser's RSS feeds RSS | Follow Newser on Twitter Twitter


8

Shakespeare Didn't Work Alone, Says Computer

Program developed to spot plagiarism shows Bard wrote Edward III With Kyd

Share

(Newser) – The computer program is called “Pl@giarism,” but no one is suggesting the Bard cribbed from others—not yet, at least. Researchers used the software, developed to spot cheating scholars, to take a look at The Reign of King Edward III, an unattributed 1596 play that has recently been added to the canon because of a wealth of Shakespearean turns of phrase. The Times reports the verdict: 40% Shakespeare, 60% Thomas Kyd.

The program analyzes the text for three-word phrase matches to a reference sample. “There might be 10 to 20 common phrases between two plays by different authors,” the researcher says, but the portions of Edward now attributed to Shakespeare came up with 200 matches; the remaining portions had 200 matches to works by Kyd. Another expert declares himself “skeptical, frankly, that we have yet reached a stage where these computer-assisted investigations can prove authorship,” but applauds the push to “see Shakespeare not as an eminence,” but as “one among many.”

A portrait of William Shakespeare.
A portrait of William Shakespeare.   (AP Photo)
A 1623 folio of Shakespeare's plays.
A 1623 folio of Shakespeare's plays.   (AP Photo)
« Prev« Prev | Next »Next » Slideshow

When you have 200 [matches] you can be pretty sure. Everyone can see that certain scenes are very Shakespearean, but no one could see why there were verses that are definitely not his. There is a real difference.
- Sir Brian Vickers, University of London

« Prev« Prev | Next »Next » Slideshow
8 comments
VIEWING:
 
Bambi
Oct 12, 09 11:38 AM CDT
Why would we assume that Shakespeare-like phrasing is indeed by The Bard and could not have been created by a contemporary imitator? I don't suppose that the Pl@giarism computer program can discern artfulness from mere structural similarities. I would expect Shakespeare to emerge from a preponderance of the former, and would not be inclined to pronounce provenance merely on the latter. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+1
IN RESPONSE:
Wills
Oct 12, 09 12:10 PM CDT
I think this is actually an interesting test case then. Maybe not this particular play, but run the software on some known Shakespeare and some contemporary imitators. I've always wondered about how effective those plagiarism algorithms are; it seems like it works and its a good idea, but I've always wondered about the fine line between plagarism and writing something thats already in the collective conscious (metaphorically speaking of course), intentionally or otherwise.
Vote up! Vote down!
+1
IN RESPONSE:
bewilderbeast
Oct 13, 09 5:23 AM CDT
Problem, @Wills, is which "known Shakespeare"? Very little is known (really KNOWN) of the man or his works despite how much has been written. 500yrs makes detective work really hard!
Vote up! Vote down!
0
polstroad
Oct 12, 09 12:30 PM CDT
Wow. Computer just found that out? I did my PhD. dissertation (Rutgers, 1966) way back before the Net and noted those findings. The diss was later published. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+1
IN RESPONSE:
Wills
Oct 12, 09 1:12 PM CDT
Thing is, you can't do that for every play ever written by Shakespeare in less than a day. Algorithmic analysis isn't cool because it can do things we can do, its cool because it can do them faster and more efficiently. And their analyses are simply interesting results, not the crowning achievement of 8-10 years and thousands of dollars invested in an education.
Vote up! Vote down!
+1
LEAVE A
COMMENT
Comment Policy
Facebook ConnectPost this comment to Facebook?

After connecting you will have the option to post your comment on your Facebook profile.