Methods

doi:10.1017/CBO9780511605437.003

2 - Methods

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 January 2010

Hugh Craig and

Arthur F. Kinney

Edited by

Hugh Craig and

Arthur F. Kinney

Show author details

Hugh Craig: Affiliation:
University of Newcastle, New South Wales
Arthur F. Kinney: Affiliation:
University of Massachusetts, Amherst

Book contents

Get access

Summary

In almost anything we read there are phrases that seem to resonate with an authorial voice. Over longer stretches of writing all sorts of small signals confirm that we are in touch with a recognizable originating consciousness, even if we realize that this imagined source is our own conjecture, created from the indirect but familiar indications in what we read or hear. Without thinking about it too much, we perform an intuitive calculus on a new work or passage to test it for likeness to an authorial style we have previously internalized. The passages seem to us either authentic or not.

But what, say, of Hal, Hotspur, and Falstaff? They inhabit the same play, but each has a recognizable style that sets him apart from the other two. Can there be a single, identifiable Shakespearean language that unites their three very different kinds of speech? What could it be about the way they speak that would actually unite them, and separate them from characters created by other writers of the same time writing in the same genre, and even drawing on the same conventions of the wily villain, the vainglorious soldier, the braggart hero, and so on?

There are other impediments to identifying an authorial style in a systematic way. For instance, how can we be sure that some of the distinctive Shakespearean phrasings are not in fact common expressions from his own time?

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: Shakespeare, Computers, and the Mystery of Authorship , pp. 15 - 39

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511605437.003 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Evans, G. B.et al., eds., The Riverside Shakespeare, 2nd edn (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1997).

Jackson, M. P., ‘Affirmative Particles in Henry VIII’, Notes and Queries, 206 (1962), 372–4CrossRef Google Scholar

Vickers, B., Shakespeare, Co-Author: A Historical Study of Five Collaborative Plays (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), p. 389.Google Scholar

Burrows, J. F., ‘All the Way Through: Testing for Authorship in Different Frequency Strata’, Literary and Linguistic Computing, 22 (2007), 27–47.CrossRef Google Scholar

Foster, D. W., Elegy by W. S.: A Study in Attribution (Newark, DE: University of Delaware Press, 1989)Google Scholar

Monsarrat, G. D., ‘A Funeral Elegy: Ford, W. S., and Shakespeare’, Review of English Studies, 53 (2002), 186–203CrossRef Google Scholar

Vickers, B., ‘Counterfeiting’ Shakespeare: Evidence, Authorship, and John Ford's ‘Funerall Elegye’ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002)CrossRef Google Scholar

Craig, H., ‘Common-Words Frequencies, Shakespeare's Style, and the Elegy by W. S.’, Early Modern Literary Studies, 8.1 (2002)Google Scholar

Crystal, D., As They Say in Zanzibar (London: Collins, 2006), p. 51.Google Scholar

Holmes, D. I., ‘Authorship Attribution’, Computers and the Humanities, 28 (1994), 87–106CrossRef Google Scholar

Burrows, J. F., ‘Textual Analysis’, in A Companion to Digital Humanities, ed. Schreibman, S., Siemens, R., and Unsworth, J. (Oxford: Blackwell, 2004), pp. 323–47.Google Scholar

Vickers, , Shakespeare, Co-Author (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002).Google Scholar

Ellegård, A., A Statistical Method for Determining Authorship: The Junius Letters, 1769–1772 (Gothenburg: University of Gothenburg Press, 1962), p. 33.Google Scholar

Snedecor, G. W. and Cochran, W. G., Statistical Methods, 8th edn (Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press, 1989), pp. 53–8.Google Scholar

Chatfield, C. and Collins, A. J., Introduction to Multivariate Analysis (London: Chapman and Hall, 1980), pp. 57–79CrossRef Google Scholar

Binongo, J. N. G. and Smith, M. W. A., ‘The Application of Principal Component Analysis to Stylometry’, Literary and Linguistic Computing, 14 (1999), 445–65CrossRef Google Scholar

Burrows, J. and Craig, H., ‘Lucy Hutchinson and the Authorship of Two Seventeenth-Century Poems: A Computational Approach’, The Seventeenth Century, 16.2 (2001), 259–82.Google Scholar

Krzanowski, W. J., Principles of Multivariate Analysis: A User's Perspective (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988), pp. 53–6.Google Scholar

Craig, H., ‘Authorial Attribution and Computational Stylistics: If You Can Tell Authors Apart, Have You Learned Anything about Them?’, Literary and Linguistic Computing, 14 (1999), 103–13CrossRef Google Scholar

Greenblatt, S., Cohen, W., Howard, J. E., and Maus, K. Eisaman, eds., The Norton Shakespeare: Based on the Oxford Edition (New York and London: Norton, 1997), p. 3118.

Partridge, A. C., Orthography in Shakespeare and Elizabethan Drama: A Study of Colloquial Contractions, Elision, Prosody and Punctuation (London: Edward Arnold, 1964), pp. 149–53Google Scholar

Bowers, F., ed., The Dramatic Works in the Beaumont and Fletcher Canon, 10 vols. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976), Vol. 3.