A Scientific Approach to the Shakespeare Authorship Question
In the field of science, it is widely accepted that all hypotheses and theories can, and should, be tested. Here, we treat the authorship of the works attributed to William Shakespeare from Stratford-upon-Avon as a hypothesis (rather than received truth) and review the current methods available for...
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
SAGE Publishing
2019-01-01
|
| Series: | SAGE Open |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244018823465 |
| _version_ | 1811198942446092288 |
|---|---|
| author | R. John Leigh John Casson David Ewald |
| author_facet | R. John Leigh John Casson David Ewald |
| author_sort | R. John Leigh |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | In the field of science, it is widely accepted that all hypotheses and theories can, and should, be tested. Here, we treat the authorship of the works attributed to William Shakespeare from Stratford-upon-Avon as a hypothesis (rather than received truth) and review the current methods available for testing this hypothesis. Justification for this investigation arises from the recent identification of several of Shakespeare’s coauthors. To illustrate potential approaches, we compare the widely accepted Stratfordian hypothesis with other competing hypotheses (authorship candidates), mainly referring to the case for Henry Neville (1562-1615). First, we identify important components of the scientific method as applied to the Shakespeare authorship issue: evaluation of evidence, formulation of a hypothesis, testing the hypothesis, and rejecting or revising the hypothesis. Referring to historical examples, we show how the scientific method has produced precise, dependable advances, even though the way in which it proceeds is often messy. Crucial for science’s progress is confirmation of experimental results, and discussion (with peer review) by the community of scientists before any hypothesis gains general acceptance. Second, using the example of Neville as a candidate, we provide specific examples of application of these principles to factors such as a candidate’s social networks, access to privileged knowledge, and textual analysis; we comment on the strengths and weakness of each approach, and how they might be applied in future studies. Throughout, we stress how doubt is an essential ingredient of progress not only in science but also in knowledge generally, including the Shakespeare authorship debate. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-12T01:39:44Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-934655a5ce794d60b5cdf6c561781307 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2158-2440 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-12T01:39:44Z |
| publishDate | 2019-01-01 |
| publisher | SAGE Publishing |
| record_format | Article |
| series | SAGE Open |
| spelling | doaj.art-934655a5ce794d60b5cdf6c5617813072022-12-22T03:53:14ZengSAGE PublishingSAGE Open2158-24402019-01-01910.1177/2158244018823465A Scientific Approach to the Shakespeare Authorship QuestionR. John Leigh0John Casson1David Ewald2Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USABolton, UKChesterfield, NH, USAIn the field of science, it is widely accepted that all hypotheses and theories can, and should, be tested. Here, we treat the authorship of the works attributed to William Shakespeare from Stratford-upon-Avon as a hypothesis (rather than received truth) and review the current methods available for testing this hypothesis. Justification for this investigation arises from the recent identification of several of Shakespeare’s coauthors. To illustrate potential approaches, we compare the widely accepted Stratfordian hypothesis with other competing hypotheses (authorship candidates), mainly referring to the case for Henry Neville (1562-1615). First, we identify important components of the scientific method as applied to the Shakespeare authorship issue: evaluation of evidence, formulation of a hypothesis, testing the hypothesis, and rejecting or revising the hypothesis. Referring to historical examples, we show how the scientific method has produced precise, dependable advances, even though the way in which it proceeds is often messy. Crucial for science’s progress is confirmation of experimental results, and discussion (with peer review) by the community of scientists before any hypothesis gains general acceptance. Second, using the example of Neville as a candidate, we provide specific examples of application of these principles to factors such as a candidate’s social networks, access to privileged knowledge, and textual analysis; we comment on the strengths and weakness of each approach, and how they might be applied in future studies. Throughout, we stress how doubt is an essential ingredient of progress not only in science but also in knowledge generally, including the Shakespeare authorship debate.https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244018823465 |
| spellingShingle | R. John Leigh John Casson David Ewald A Scientific Approach to the Shakespeare Authorship Question SAGE Open |
| title | A Scientific Approach to the Shakespeare Authorship Question |
| title_full | A Scientific Approach to the Shakespeare Authorship Question |
| title_fullStr | A Scientific Approach to the Shakespeare Authorship Question |
| title_full_unstemmed | A Scientific Approach to the Shakespeare Authorship Question |
| title_short | A Scientific Approach to the Shakespeare Authorship Question |
| title_sort | scientific approach to the shakespeare authorship question |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244018823465 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT rjohnleigh ascientificapproachtotheshakespeareauthorshipquestion AT johncasson ascientificapproachtotheshakespeareauthorshipquestion AT davidewald ascientificapproachtotheshakespeareauthorshipquestion AT rjohnleigh scientificapproachtotheshakespeareauthorshipquestion AT johncasson scientificapproachtotheshakespeareauthorshipquestion AT davidewald scientificapproachtotheshakespeareauthorshipquestion |