![Sample our Language & Literature journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5941/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Language-Literature.jpg"})
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Notes
1. The present article (which has benefited from comments by ANQ’s anonymous reader) offers a fresh perspective on methodologies critiqued by Auerbach, “Quantitative Methods” and “Statistical Infelicities”; CitationFreebury-Jones and Dahl, “Limitations of Microattribution”; CitationRizvi, “ A Critique,” “CitationAuthor Attribution,” “CitationImprovement,” “CitationInterpretation of Zeta,” and “CitationProblem of Microattribution”; CitationVickers, “Authorship Studies.” It does not attempt to engage with other articles by Brian Vickers and Freebury-Jones that advance counter-arguments to NOS findings. Protracted debate on methodological issues may be found on the “Shaksper” thread “The Shakespeare Canon and the NOS” from 16 November 2018 onwards: https://shaksper.net/archive.
2. The technique is described in; CitationSegarra, et.al., “Attributing”; CitationEisen, et. al., “Stylometric Analysis.”
3. See CitationEisen, et. al, 518–21, for the WANs results for Shakespeare collaborations.
4. CitationCraig and Kinney, 26–39, for Titus, Timon, Kinsmen, and Henry VIII, 41–68 passim for 1 Henry VI.
5. Supplementing Nashe’s sole surviving play, Summer’s Last Will and Testament, with some of Nashe’s prose writings, Craig was able to show that lexical words tended to support the theory, accepted by Vickers and the NOS, that Nashe was the author of 1 Henry VI, Act 1.
6. CitationVickers, Shakespeare, Co-Author, 34–43 (More), 145–6 (Edward III, 1 Henry VI), “CitationIncomplete Shakespeare,” “CitationTwo Authors.”
7. PCA of function words supported the Edward III results (CitationCraig and Kinney 131).
8. The method for that study was the same as that which assigned scene 8 and Arden’s narrative of his dream (6.6–31) in Arden of Faversham to Shakespeare (CitationJackson, Shakespeare Canon 10–39, 54–6, 60–84).
9. As it happens this portion of 4.3 falls within a passage that Bourus and Karim-Cooper thought could be cut, but their opinion was formed independently, with no knowledge of Loughnane’s data.