More than 100 years after Shakespeare’s death, Lewis Theobald published Double Falsehood, a play supposedly sourced from a lost play by Shakespeare and John Fletcher. Since its release, scholars have attempted to determine its true authorship. Using new approaches to language and psychological analysis, we examined Double Falsehood and the works of Theobald, Shakespeare, and Fletcher. Specifically, we created a psychological signature from each author’s language and statistically compared the features of each signature with those of Double Falsehood’s signature. Multiple analytic approaches converged in suggesting that Double Falsehood’s psychological style and content architecture predominantly resemble those of Shakespeare, showing some similarity with Fletcher’s signature and only traces of Theobald’s. Closer inspection revealed that Shakespeare’s influence is most apparent early in the play, whereas Fletcher’s is most apparent in later acts. Double Falsehood has a psychological signature consistent with that expected to be present in the long-lost play The History of Cardenio, cowritten by Shakespeare and Fletcher.
BarkanL. (2001). What did Shakespeare read? In de GraziaM.WellsS. (Eds.), The Cambridge companion to Shakespeare (pp. 31–48). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
2.
BoydR. L. (2014a). MEH: Meaning Extraction Helper (Version 1.0.6) [Software]. Available from http://meh.ryanb.cc
3.
BoydR. L. (2014b). RIOT Scan: Recursive Inspection of Text Scanner (Version 1.8.3) [Software]. Available from http://riot.ryanb.cc
BurkeP. A.DollingerS. J. (2005). A picture’s worth a thousand words: Language use in the autophotographic essay. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 536–548.
CassidyJ.ShermanL. J.JonesJ. D. (2012). What’s in a word? Linguistic characteristics of Adult Attachment Interviews. Attachment & Human Development, 14, 11–32.
8.
ChungC. K.PennebakerJ. W. (2008). Revealing dimensions of thinking in open-ended self-descriptions: An automated meaning extraction method for natural language. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 96–132.
9.
ClarkA.AubreyJ. (1898). “Brief lives”, chiefly of contemporaries, set down by John Aubrey, between the years of 1669 & 1696. Oxford, MA: Clarendon Press.
10.
ColmanA. M.WalleyM.SluckinW. (1975). Preferences for common words, uncommon words and non-words by children and young adults. British Journal of Psychology, 66, 481–486.
11.
CraigH. (1999). Authorial attribution and computational stylistics: If you can tell authors apart, have you learned anything about them?Literary and Linguistic Computing, 14, 103–113.
12.
CraigH.KinneyA. (2009). Shakespeare, computers, and the mystery of authorship. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
13.
CurramS. P.MingersJ. (1994). Neural networks, decision tree induction and discriminant analysis: An empirical comparison. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 45, 440–450.
14.
DominikM. (1991). William Shakespeare and the birth of Merlin. Beaverton, OR: Alioth Press.
15.
FisherR. A. (1936). The use of multiple measurements in taxonomic problems. Annals of Eugenics, 7, 179–188.
HarrisZ. (1954). Distributional structure. Word, 10, 146–162.
24.
HolmesD. I. (1994). Authorship attribution. Computers and the Humanities, 28(2), 87–106.
25.
IdeA. (2010). John Fletcher of Corpus Christi College: New records of his early years. Early Theatre, 13(2), 63–77.
26.
JohnsonE. (1996). Lexical change and variation in the southeastern United States: 1930-1990. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
27.
JuolaP. (2006). Authorship attribution. Foundations and Trends in Information Retrieval, 1(3).
28.
KononenkoI. (2001). Machine learning for medical diagnosis: History, state of the art, and perspective. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, 23, 89–109.
29.
KoppelM.SchlerJ.ArgamonS. (2008). Computational methods in authorship attribution. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(1), 9–26.
30.
KukowskiS. (1990). The hand of John Fletcher in Double Falsehood. Shakespeare Survey, 43, 81–89.
31.
LandauerT. K.DumaisS. T. (1997). A solution to Plato’s problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review, 104, 211–240.
32.
LeighL. (2011). “’Tis no such killing matter”: Rape in Fletcher and Shakespeare’s Cardenio and in Lewis Theobald’s Double Falsehood. Shakespeare, 7, 284–296.
33.
MillerG. A. (1995). The science of words. New York, NY: Scientific American Library.
34.
MortonA. Q. (1978). Literary detection: How to prove authorship and fraud in literature and documents. New York, NY: Scribner’s.
35.
MostellerF.WallaceD. L. (1964). Inference and disputed authorship: The Federalist. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
36.
PennebakerJ. W. (2004). Writing to heal: A guided journal for recovering from trauma and emotional upheaval. Oakland, CA: New Harbinger Press.
37.
PennebakerJ. W. (2011). The secret life of pronouns: What our words say about us. New York, NY: Bloomsbury.
38.
PennebakerJ. W.BoothR. J.FrancisM. E. (2007). Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC2007): A computerized text analysis program [Computer software]. Austin, TX: LIWC.net
PennebakerJ. W.ChungC. K.IrelandM.GonzalesA.BoothR. J. (2007). The development and psychometric properties of LIWC2007 [Software manual]. Austin, TX: LIWC.net
41.
PennebakerJ. W.KingL. A. (1999). Linguistic styles: Language use as an individual difference. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1296–1312.
42.
PennebakerJ. W.MehlM. R.NiederhofferK. G. (2003). Psychological aspects of natural language use: Our words, our selves. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 547–577.
43.
PetrieK. J.PennebakerJ. W.SivertsenB. (2008). Things we said today: A linguistic analysis of the Beatles. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 2, 197–202.
44.
PotterL. (2012). The life of William Shakespeare: A critical biography. West Sussex, England: Wiley-Blackwell.
45.
Ramirez-EsparzaN.ChungC. K.KacewiczE.PennebakerJ. W. (2008). The psychology of word use in depression forums in English and in Spanish: Testing two text analytic approaches. In AdarE.HurstM.FininT.GlanceN.NicolovN.TsengB. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2008 International Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (pp. 102–108). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.
46.
RobinsonR. L.NaveaR.IckesW. (2013). Predicting final course performance from students’ written self-introductions: A LIWC analysis. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 32, 469–479.
47.
RogersP. (Ed.). (2004). The Alexander Pope encyclopedia. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
48.
SchwartzH. A.EichstaedtJ.DziurzynskiL.BlancoE.KernM. L.RamonesS.. . . UngarL. (2013). Choosing the right words: Characterizing and reducing error of the word count approach. In DiabM.BaldwinT.BaroniM. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Second Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics (*SEM) (pp. 296–305). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
49.
SchwartzH. A.EichstaedtJ. C.KernM. L.DziurzynskiL.RamonesS. M.AgrawalM.. . . UngarL. H. (2013). Personality, gender, and age in the language of social media: The open-vocabulary approach. PLoS ONE, 8(9), Article e73791. Retrieved from http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0073791
50.
SearyP. (1990). Lewis Theobald and the editing of Shakespeare. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
51.
ShakespeareW. (1890). The works of William Shakespeare (IrvingH.MarshallF. A.DowdenE., Eds.). New York, NY: Scribner and Wellford.
52.
SomersH. H. (1998). An attempt to use weighted cusums to identify sublanguages. In PowersD. W. M. (Ed.), Proceedings of New Methods in Language Processing 3 and Computational Natural Language Learning (pp. 131–139). Sydney, Australia: ACL.
53.
SternT. (2011). “The forgery of some modern author”?: Theobald’s Shakespeare and Cardenio’sDouble Falsehood. Shakespeare Quarterly, 62, 555–593.
54.
TausczikY. R.PennebakerJ. W. (2010). The psychological meaning of words: LIWC and computerized text analysis methods. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 29, 24–54.
55.
UleL. (1982). Recent progress in computer methods of authorship determination. Association for Literary and Linguistic Computing Bulletin, 10, 73–89.
56.
van HalterenH.BaayenR. H.TweedieF.HaverkortM.NeijtA. (2005). New machine learning methods demonstrate the existence of a human stylome. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 12, 65–77.
57.
ViolaP.JonesM. J. (2004). Robust real-time face detection. International Journal of Computer Vision, 57, 137–154.
58.
WellmanF. L. (1936). The art of cross-examination (4th ed.). New York, NY: Macmillan.
59.
WittenI. H.FrankE.HallM. A. (2011). Data mining: Practical machine learning tools and techniques (3rd ed.). Burlington, MA: Elsevier.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
