Slashdot Mirror


Plagiarism-Detection Software Confirms Shakespeare Play

mi tips us that software intended to help essay graders detect plagiarism has been used to attribute to Shakespeare — with high probability — a hitherto unattributed play, 'The Reign of Edward III.' It seems that the work was co-authored by Shakespeare and another playwright of the time, Thomas Kyd. "With a program called Pl@giarism, Vickers detected 200 strings of three or more words in 'Edward III' that matched phrases in Shakespeare's other works. Usually, works by two different authors will only have about 20 matching strings."

49 of 185 comments (clear)

  1. Phony by mykos · · Score: 4, Funny

    And the evidence continues to mount against him. All lies!

  2. So what they're saying is that... by macraig · · Score: 2, Funny

    ... Shakespeare plagiarized himself? Stop the presses!

    1. Re:So what they're saying is that... by shentino · · Score: 3, Funny

      It might be plagiarism but it most certainly isn't copyright infringement.

      At least in theory...the american legal system is convoluted enough that might not be true.

    2. Re:So what they're saying is that... by gmhowell · · Score: 4, Funny

      Shakespeare's stuff is still copyrighted? Damn, these extensions are getting ridiculous.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    3. Re:So what they're saying is that... by wvmarle · · Score: 2, Informative

      According to WP, copyright started with the Statute of Anne in Britain in 1710. International copyright recognition came only later.

      Also according to WP, Shakespeare lived from 1564 to 1616.

      So actually I think Shakespeare's plays were never copyrighted in the first place.

    4. Re:So what they're saying is that... by Plunky · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So actually I think Shakespeare's plays were never copyrighted in the first place.

      Sir, I must point out inconsistencies in your argument. It seems that we have two choices:

      • His works were in fact copyrighted and he lived well from the proceeds.
      • His works were not copyrighted and he starved to death at an early age.

      But records exist that indicate otherwise in both cases. So, my contention is that the records are clearly falsified and we should err on the side of caution. I myself am owner of a corporation that is willing to step up and maintain the legacy of Shakespeare by collecting the royalties for when he returns(1) to claim them. I myself would take no salary for this, only a small(2) annual dividend(3) in order to ensure that the corporation can continue to protect this valuable intellectual property for the forseeable(4) future.

      1. religious freedom cannot deny reincarnation
      2. to maintain myself in the minimum style that the guardian of such a legacy deserves
      3. no income tax to be paid on dividends naturally
      4. lets just call it forever less a day to simplify the accounting
  3. Or... by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It seems that the work was co-authored by Shakespeare and another playwright of the time, Thomas Kyd.

    Or Thomas Kyd plagiarized Shakespeare's work.

    1. Re:Or... by osu-neko · · Score: 2, Informative

      From TFA there were parts of the text that were very strongly Shakespearian, and parts not. There is no word on whether they did a plagiarism test on this script vs Kyd's work.

      Actually, there is, and they did. About 60% of the work does match Kyd's other known works, as well as four other unattributed plays that are believed to be by Kyd as well (and this result would lend further credence to that).

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    2. Re:Or... by jipn4 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Or complete sentences. If this is plagiarized it is at least seriously rewritten.

      Yes. People actually rewrote things while copying back then; no cut-and-paste.

      Shakespeare being famous is not necessarily the one being plagiarised. Maybe he is the one plagiarising.

      There was no plagiarism in the modern sense back then. Authors, artists, and scientists copied each others works; that's why we got such a rich cultural heritage. Today, you can get in trouble for a single sentence.

      Imagine how backwards computers would be if you had to write a new kernel, window system, and libraries every time you wanted to write an application.

    3. Re:Or... by KnownIssues · · Score: 2, Funny

      Imagine how backwards computers would be if you had to write a new kernel, window system, and libraries every time you wanted to write an application.

      • Nobody too stupid to use a computer would survive in the world
      • Everyone would have to be skilled programmers
      • All your applications would do exactly what you wanted and only what you wanted so no software bloat
      • Open source would be almost automatic
      • Hardware would have to be universally compatible
  4. Stake Your Claim by HouseOfMisterE · · Score: 5, Funny

    Game Show Host (John Cleese): Good evening and welcome to Stake Your Claim. First this evening we have Mr Norman Voles of Gravesend who claims he wrote all Shakespeare's works. Mr Voles, I understand you claim that you wrote all those plays normally attributed to Shakespeare?

    Voles (Michael Palin): That is correct. I wrote all his plays and my wife and I wrote his sonnets.

    Host: Mr Voles, these plays are known to have been performed in the early 17th century. How old are you, Mr Voles?

    Voles: 43.

    Host: Well, how is it possible for you to have written plays performed over 300 years before you were born?

    Voles: Ah well. This is where my claim falls to the ground.

    Host: Ah!

    Voles: There's no possible way of answering that argument, I'm afraid. I was only hoping you would not make that particular point, but I can see you're more than a match for me!

    Host: Mr Voles, thank you very much for coming along.

    Voles: My pleasure.

    Host: Next we have Mr Bill Wymiss who claims to have built the Taj Mahal.

    Wymiss (Eric Idle): No.

    Host: I'm sorry?

    Wymiss: No. No.

    Host: I thought you cla...

    Wymiss: Well I did but I can see I won't last a minute with you.

    Host: Next...

    Wymiss: I was right!

  5. Homage? by davidbofinger · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So they've found a play that has some of Shakespeare's pet phrases in it. How do we know Shakespeare wrote it? We need to be able to reject alternatives like someone plagiarising those phrases from Shakespeare, or someone writing a deliberate homage of Shakespeare. Something similar happens in linguistics, where you're trying to tell if two languages are related but you can't tell if a pair of words are cognates or borrowed.

  6. Re:Stake Your Claim (Continued...) by HouseOfMisterE · · Score: 2, Funny

    Host: ... we have Mrs Mittelschmerz of Dundee who cla... Mrs Mittelschmerz, what is your claim?

    Mittelschmerz (Graham Chapman in drag): That I can burrow through an elephant.

    Host: (Pause) Now you've changed your claim, haven't you. You know we haven't got an elephant.

    Mittelschmerz: (Insincerely) Oh, haven't you? Oh dear!

    Host: You're not fooling anybody, Mrs Mittelschmerz. In your letter you quite clearly claimed that ... er ... you could be thrown off the top of Beachy Head into the English Channel and then be buried.

    Mittelschmerz: No, you can't read my writing.

    Host: It's typed.

    Mittelschmerz: It says 'elephant'.

    Host: Mrs Mittelschmerz, this is an entertainment show, and I'm not prepared to simply sit here bickering. Take her away, Heinz!

    Mittelschmerz: Here, no, leave me alone! (Sound of wind and sea).

    Mittelschmerz: Oooaaahh! (SPLOSH)

  7. Re:Oblig. Shakespear Quote by ld+a,b · · Score: 5, Funny

    In Soviet Russia, Shakespeare misspells THEE!

    --
    10 little-endian boys went out to dine, a big-endian carp ate one, and then there were -246.
  8. !confirmed by wizardforce · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The work done *suggests* that Shakespeare collaborated with Kyd on the work but it's not the slam dunk that the title would have you believe.

    --
    Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    1. Re:!confirmed by JunkmanUK · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yeah I get that - like the blood stains all over the front of my car *suggest* I was the one who ran over my neighbours dog... Hey it could have been anybody's dog!

  9. I plagiarized Shakespeare too! by Renderer+of+Evil · · Score: 4, Funny

    Back in college I briefly took a creative writing course which was filled with snobs clutching their leatherbound Infinite Jest copies who used words like "perspectival" and "serendipitous."

    During one of the meetings the lecture focused on poetic expression with an emphasis on sonnets. Homework consisted of writing an abab, cdcd, efef, gg sonnet and reading it outloud to the circle of douchebags who then offered their opinions about the piece. Being an industrious person, I applied my murky understanding of F/OSS principles to the fine craft of poetic expression and forked one of Shakespeare's obscure sonnets, changing some archaic words into more modern form.

    I got a round of faint applause then dropped the class 2 weeks later.

    1. Re:I plagiarized Shakespeare too! by gmhowell · · Score: 4, Funny

      Wait, "serendipity" is a pretentious word now?

      Sometimes strange, wonderful, coincidental things happen.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    2. Re:I plagiarized Shakespeare too! by Shikaku · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's also a cromulent word.

    3. Re:I plagiarized Shakespeare too! by glwtta · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's always been a word for writers, not used in conversation. Wait, you're just now finding out you're a douchebag?

      Well damn my eyes, I think I've been using writers' words for years without even realizing it!

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
    4. Re:I plagiarized Shakespeare too! by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yup, using speech as a social status marker is what aristocrats use to make sure that everyone around knows what they are. Yearning for aristocratic status causes people to behave as douchebags of the highest order, the poor souls.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    5. Re:I plagiarized Shakespeare too! by glwtta · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yup, using speech as a social status marker is what aristocrats use to make sure that everyone around knows what they are.

      So true. On the other hand, some people take an interest in the language they speak every day.

      Go figure.

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
    6. Re:I plagiarized Shakespeare too! by bennomatic · · Score: 2, Funny

      Wow. Now I feel embiggened.

      --
      The CB App. What's your 20?
  10. hmmm by wizardforce · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The article mentions the fact that there was very high competitive pressure on writers to compose plays very quickly so I wonder if there actually was plagiarism going on here. How hard would it have been for one of these writers to get at least a fairly crude copy of Shakespeare's work and utilise various elements of Shakespeare's previous plays? Can anyone enlighten us as to the probability of this being the case or for that matter how common plagiarism actually was at the time?

    --
    Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    1. Re:hmmm by wvmarle · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You are the second commenter already who assumes Shakespeare is the victim here. Maybe he's actually the culprit, and plagiarised someone else's play?

    2. Re:hmmm by jfengel · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Getting access to the play was easy: admission was a penny. They most certainly did go to each other's works and steal phrases from each other. Shakespeare clearly cribbed from Marlowe, among others.

      They stole stories from each other all the time. Stories were considered common property. Trying to protect them would seem as absurd as many Slashdotters consider software patents.

      But they were fairly protective of the play as a whole. There was just one master copy, and each actor would get a copy literally of his lines, plus the cue that came before each. Saved copying expenses (it's not like they had a xerox) and also protected the plays. And those cue sheets were treated as secrets.

      Eventually the play would be published (and performed without royalties), but Edward III was published fairly early in Shakespeare's career, and it would be hard to gather up enough material from the previously printed plays to make up a new one attributable to Shakespeare.

      Attribution is more art than science, and attempts to do it with software are pretty controversial. Just because this software agrees with the experts this time doesn't fill me with confidence about the software.

      I've looked at it myself, and it definitely fits in with Shakespeare's other early history plays. But it's not his best work. It has a few genuinely good scenes, and it deserves to be studied with the rest of the canon, but it's not exactly Hamlet or Richard III. I doubt most people will ever see it.

    3. Re:hmmm by jonadab · · Score: 2, Interesting

      > it's not exactly Hamlet or Richard III.
      > I doubt most people will ever see it.

      MacBeth isn't exactly Hamlet, but that hasn't stopped *it* from being studied. Heck, it gets studied *almost* as much as Hamlet.

      Romeo and Juliet is a *far* cry from Hamlet (frankly, by comparison it's drivel), but if anything it's more famous, having been redone and remade *many* more times, and in fact R&J may even be the most famous work of literature[1] ever written in the English language.

      As for Richard III, most people haven't seen it.

      [1] Excluding music and translations. If you include music, the most famous work ever written in the English language is probably the song Happy Birthday (which has a *weird* copyright history), unless you also include translations, in which case it's the KJV hands down (which as I understand it is in the public domain everywhere in the world except England). But these aren't really fair comparisons for a stage play.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
  11. Not what the software was designed for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This software is for detecting plagiarism. In the situation it is designed for, one person uses another person's work but tries not to reveal the fact. The program catches this by noting that the pieces of writing are too similar. If it's well-designed, then it is good at this task, so it should be reasonably sensitive to similarity.

    The "authentication" scenario described in TFA is very different. Assume the play is fake (written by someone pretending to be Shakespeare). Then it is not a case of one person using another person's work and trying to conceal that, but rather one person imitating another person's work. If the program is sensitive to similarity, it might be easy to fool into giving a false positive. We really don't know. In order to tell, we would have to ask some people to deliberately write fake Shakespearean works and see how the program scores those.

    Until we have more data on how the software performs at THIS task, rather than the plagiarism-detection task, I'll still be skeptical about the provenance of Edward III.

  12. Divine inspiration by Thanshin · · Score: 5, Funny

    Another use would be to apply the algorithms to religious books to reveal which parts were really inspired by a divinity, and which parts were simply invented by some random, power hungry, con man, to control his peers.

    They could call it Bl@sphemy.

    1. Re:Divine inspiration by digitig · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I can't help but think that while people who are genuinely interested in the history of the Bible might find it fascinating, there's a certain amount of "be careful what you ask for, you just might get it". Particularly among any that are interested in the history of the Bible because of their own religious beliefs rather than just an academic interest in a very old book.

      You don't think it possible that they might want to know whether their beliefs are well founded?

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    2. Re:Divine inspiration by bkr1_2k · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Most people with such beliefs don't need confirmation from some "outside source" as to whether their beliefs are well founded. That's why they call if faith.

      I think you will find that if someone did "confirm" that many biblical works were plagiarized or whatever, that believers would not care. In their minds, the Bible (or whatever particular work they believe in) is the "word of God" and it doesn't matter who put it to paper. They will accept that one person could have been inspired to write several different things and won't care.

      --
      "Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
    3. Re:Divine inspiration by radtea · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You don't think it possible that they might want to know whether their beliefs are well founded?

      Of course not. If they did, they would base their beliefs on rational empricism, not a logically inconsistent fantasy whose primary source is a collection of scriptures full of falsehoods, violence and vindictiveness (as well as some beautiful poetry and a smidgen of worthy moral advice that doesn't come close to redeeming the whole.)

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    4. Re:Divine inspiration by radtea · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Would be interesting to see if a computer comes up with the same JEDP authors though.

      The authorship question aside, it's doubtful that this kind of analysis would catch the more interesting bits of plagerism in the Bible. The lifting of the Flood story from the Sumerian story of Utnapishtim, and the bits of Gilgamesh that are spliced into Eclesiastes, for example.

      Although in the latter case Siduri's advice to Gilgamesh (go home and enjoy your life taking joy in your spouse and children, quit trying to live forever) is virtually identical to what the Teacher writes (can't recall the exact reference--somewhere in chapter 4, I think) the differences in language probably make this kind of semantics-free analysis less than useful.

      And of course, most of the source material that the Bible was plagerized from is lost to us, which limits the applications of this technique to that problem as well. This is unfortunate, as an understanding of the works that the Bible authors plagiarized would help us understand the place of the Bible in the history of literature and give more clues as to the culture that produced it.

      Why, for example, was the Sumerian flood story plagiarized, and not the quest for imortality? Why was Siduri's advice plagiarized and not Gilgamesh's lament on the death of Enkidu, or Enkidu's lament in the underworld?

      This kind of analysis is extremely valuable in understanding the context in which a particular literary work was created: we know that Shakespeare and his contemporaries borrowed plots and characters from each other all the time, repeating the same basic stories with variations, like film remakes in the modern world (Henry V is a good example of Shakespeare transforming a story that had been covered before into something new and wonderful, despite the many borrowed scenes). What an author chose to plagiarize out of the many source works available tells us a lot about his time and place and how he saw the world. We can't do that with the Bible, because so many of the source works it was plagiarized from have been lost to us.

      The Book of Mormon, now... it would definitely be worth applying this kind of analysis to that...

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    5. Re:Divine inspiration by gtbritishskull · · Score: 3, Informative

      Some religious sects do encourage questioning of the bible. Some don't believe the (King James version of the, lol) bible is the actual word of god, but instead a document written by humans. While it is still the basis of the faith, it is understood that it is written for people in the 1st century BC and therefore should be interpreted through that lens. You shouldn't stereotype over such a diverse range of people like that. It just makes you sound ignorant and reactionary.

  13. hackneyed phrases ... by Katchu · · Score: 2, Funny

    Shakespeare, huh. That guys works are full of clichés.

    --
    Keep Doing Good.
  14. Not "unattributed" by jfengel · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This play has been widely attributed to Shakespeare by Shakespeare scholars for some time. It already appears in the Oxford Complete Works, the New Cambridge Shakespeare, and (my favorite) the Riverside Shakespeare.

    Nothing is ever definitive in this line of work, so it's interesting to have the software weigh in on it. But I don't think any scholars would be changing their minds if it didn't.

  15. Re:I call bullshit by osu-neko · · Score: 5, Informative

    For example, these matching strings could just as well be common turns of phrase of the day. There doesn't seem to be any indication that the software was re-configured for common expressions of old English.

    This is gibberish. The software isn't configured for common expressions of modern English, either. If you understand what it's doing, you should understand why no such configuration is necessary, as long as the two works being compared are contemporaneous. (Or heck, even if they aren't -- correlation should go down in that case, a high score is even more indicative when comparing non-contemporaneous authors.)

    The study would be more plausible if works by two different authors IN ENGLAND IN THE YEAR 1600 contained 20 or so matching strings. But since that control group is missing -- so is the validity of the conclusion.

    This is just misinformed. They've compared works by both the same author and different authors in England around 1600. It turns out it's just as true then as it is today that works by different authors contain significantly smaller sets of common wording. Indeed, this technique is used to identify which 60% of the play was written by Kyd (by comparing with his other work) and which 40% comes from The Bard. Comparing known works of either Kyd or The Bard with other works by the same author produce the same high correspondence, and comparing known works between the two different authors produces the same low correspondence.

    --
    "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
  16. This & That by mindbrane · · Score: 2, Interesting

    For anyone interested I'd suggest M. Wood's documentary, "In Search of Shakespeare". The four part documentary won't answer any of the more delicious and silly questions about the authorship of Shakespeare's plays but it will give as good an historical insight as is easily available. Thomas Kyd is best known for his play The Spanish Tragedy worth reading for the style. Christopher Marlowe and Kyd were the new kids on the block before Shakespeare made his mark. A famous critique of Shakespeare, mentioned in Wood's documentary attacks Shakespeare as unschooled and not an equal to "university wits" like Marlowe. The problem with attribution is that, likely, all authors of that period plagiarized, (by our standards) , one another. Shakespeare started out as an actor with a traveling company IIRC, the King's Men, who were basically a troupe of government propagandists. Theatre was a relatively new phenomenon and was used in the Elizabethan era as a propaganda tool during the conversion of England from Catholic to Protestantism. Shakespeare stole many of the best plots he studied as an actor with the King's Men. While Shakespeare was known to have co-authored plays with others, the missing play based on the first part of Cervantes Don Quxiote is the most notable example, I know of no evidence, though evidence of any kind is scant, that Shakespeare and Kyd worked together. Kyd and Marlowe were implicated as Catholic agents and Marlowe was likely murdered because he was catholic. IMHO neither Marlowe or Kyd can hold a candle to Shakespeare.

    --
    ideopath @ play
  17. Now Try This by DynaSoar · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Get a copy of the Unabomber Manifesto
    http://cyber.eserver.org/unabom.txt

    Rate the entire work, and each numbered paragraph, for reading level using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level Readability Formula
    http://www.readabilityformulas.com/flesch-grade-level-readability-formula.php

    Split the work into 2 parts, one with paragraph reading level ratings greater than the overall score, one with the scores less than overall.

    Apply plagiarism testing software to compare these two halves and see whether it says they were written by the same or by different persons.

    Before the creation of plagiarism testing software, we still had several different reading level testing programs available. I did this test using three different programs. They said that at least two people wrote the work. Ted Kaczynski was never considered to have Multiple Personality Disorder, so if the results (still) say two people wrote it, each with their own style, then it's highly unlikely Kaczynski wrote it by himself.

    --
    "I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
    1. Re:Now Try This by YourExperiment · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't see any validity in applying the formula to individual paragraphs.

      If I were to say "The cat sat on the mat", this would score pretty low on the scale, but there is no better way to express the cat's location to you. If I were to go on to say "thus was my ailurophilia originally instantiated" this sentence would score considerably higher. However I don't see that this provides any evidence that I didn't write both sentences.

    2. Re:Now Try This by radtea · · Score: 2, Informative

      I did this test using three different programs. They said that at least two people wrote the work.

      This is interesting, but have you validated this method of analysis by applying it to works of known authorship, say on fanfic sites or alt.politics newsgroups, which would be reasonable control sources--unedited outpourings of interested amateurs? That would tell you that works of the same author don't get flagged as different simply due to your reading-level split.

      Ideally I'd like to see a p-value for your claim that "the work was written by at least two people" against the null hypothesis "only one person wrote the work". Without a p-value you really aren't saying anything. Presumably the plagiarism detection software produces a probability of works being by the same author. What you need to do is apply your reading-level split to a bunch of works and generate a distribution (histogram) of the probabilities that the two parts of each work are from different authors. Then ask the question: what are the odds that the probability I get from applying this analysis of Kaczynski was drawn from this distribution? That is your p-value. If it is very small, it is implausible that Kaczynski's work was written by one author.

      There are still problems with your approach, but doing this would bring you into the realm of discourse where people could argue about your method, but not dispute the objectivity of your result given your assumptions.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
  18. Being pedantic by Kupfernigk · · Score: 4, Informative
    Shakespeare didn't write Old English. He actually wrote modern English. Old English is Anglo-Saxon. Even Chaucer (Whan that Aprille with his shoures soote) wrote in English, though he was sometimes unsure as to how many esses to use.

    Why the pedantry? Because, if you didn't know that, you really shouldn't be pontificating on linguistics or linguistic analysis.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
    1. Re:Being pedantic by jonadab · · Score: 2, Informative

      > Shakespeare didn't write Old English. He actually wrote modern English.

      No, he wrote early English. It *is* English (unlike Old English, which is not the same language at all), but it is most definitely not the modern form thereof.

      > Old English is Anglo-Saxon.

      Yes, that's right. Actually, "Anglo-Saxon" is a much better name for it, because it's not really anything you would recognize as English. It's much more closely related to Germanic and Scandinavian languages.

      > Even Chaucer wrote in English,

      Chaucer wrote in Middle English, which is more similar to English than Old English is, but still most definitely not the same language. In fact, English is less similar and less closely related to Middle English than French is to Latin. The relationship to Old English is even more remote.

      To get from Old English (Beowulf) to early English (Shakespeare) you have to stir in such generous quantities of loan words (mostly from French, Latin, and Greek) that fewer than 10% of the words in the language trace their ancestry back to Old English. You also have to make considerable adjustments to the morphology of the language, significantly alter the orthography (taking the basic spelling system apart and putting it back together differently), completely change the phonology of all the vowels and several of the consonants, alter the grammar in a number of significant ways, and run through several rounds of vulgarization (i.e., let the street lingo of the common people diverge so substantially from the written form of the language that it essentially becomes a creole, then get enough authors to start writing in the common language of the people that it becomes accepted in educated circles; rinse and repeat several times), among other things.

      It's sort of like the relationship between Classical Latin and Haitian Kreyol, except that English has had a larger number of external influences on its vocabulary and grammar.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
  19. One for thine homies by dangitman · · Score: 3, Funny

    It seems that the work was co-authored by Shakespeare and another playwright of the time, Thomas Kyd.

    When working together, they were known by the name "Kyd Shakez."

    --
    ... and then they built the supercollider.
  20. Re:!(!confirmed) by Golygydd+Max · · Score: 4, Informative

    About six years ago, the Royal Shakespeare Company presented a performance of Edward III and attributed it to Shakespeare. It's accepted that Shakespeare didn't write every word of every plays in his canon (for example, he didn't write most of Pericles and Henry VIII) but there was obviously enough evidence for most Shakespeare scholars to accept that he wrote a substantial part of it. This latest piece of research is just a further piece of evidence, but it's nothing radically new.

  21. Any product with @ in the name... by rmc · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Of course, any product that has had @ in the name at any point in the last, oh, decade or so can not by any means be taken seriously.

  22. isn't there a simpler explanation? by goombah99 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So the software was designed to detect bodies of work that contain phrases from other works. ANd it finds a work that is a composite of Shakespear and Kyd. isn't it more likely that someone back then was plagarizing from Shakespear and Kyd? As opposed to them collaborating?

    For example if I turned in a term paper and the plagarism software detected phrases from cory doctrow and thomas pynchon, the conclusion my instructor would leap to is obvioulsy that the three of us collaborated on the term paper right? not! Why should this be different for this Play?

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:isn't there a simpler explanation? by MBGMorden · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think the idea would be that if it picked up their writing "style" they could then locate the piece that you plagiarized from.

      In the case mentioned, it doesn't seem like there's an original source that was copied. It's an original work, but has the basic style indicative of Shakespeare. If someone plagiarized him then we'd have to assume that whatever they copied from was lost. It's an easier to accept notion that Shakespeare simply wrote this piece himself.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
  23. Re:!(!confirmed) by BrokenHalo · · Score: 3, Informative

    for example, he didn't write most of Pericles and Henry VIII...

    As to the latter, he might not have wanted to claim too much ownership to that play, given its first performance only 10 years after the death of Elizabeth, Henry's daughter. Dangerous ground indeed, given the treatment meted out by the Queen's secret police to other playwrights of the time.

    In fact, the first performance of that play happened to be the same night the Globe Theatre burnt down. Good fodder for conspiracy theories there...