Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2001 :: March ::
Re: Shakespearean Authorship Research
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.0682  Wednesday, 21 March 2001

[1]     From:   Hardy M. Cook <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, March 21, 2001
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.0663 Shakespearean Authorship Research

[2]     From:   Mike Jensen <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 20 Mar 2001 13:02:46 -0800
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.0663 Shakespearean Authorship Research

[3]     From:   Karen Peterson-Kranz <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 20 Mar 2001 13:59:07 -0800 (PST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.0663 Shakespearean Authorship Research

[4]     From:   Sean Lawrence <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 20 Mar 2001 13:19:35 -0800
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.0663 Shakespearean Authorship Research

[5]     From:   John E. Perry <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 20 Mar 2001 20:24:29 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.0663 Shakespearean Authorship Res

[6]     From:   Peter Groves <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 21 Mar 2001 13:59:55 +1100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.0663 Shakespearean Authorship Research


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Hardy M. Cook <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, March 21, 2001
Subject: 12.0663 Shakespearean Authorship Research
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.0663 Shakespearean Authorship Research

Perhaps, an explanation is called for. I got back late Monday from an
out-of-state funeral and have had a head cold for several days. Indeed,
I discussions of authorship are not permitted on SHAKSPER. However, at
the time, Paul's posting appeared to describe a methodology rather than
to argue for a candidate. For that reason, I let the posting go.

Still sniffling,
Hardy

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Mike Jensen <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 20 Mar 2001 13:02:46 -0800
Subject: 12.0663 Shakespearean Authorship Research
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.0663 Shakespearean Authorship Research

Paul,

Perhaps you did lose me, or perhaps something was missing in your
explanation.  If I understand you correctly, your program ranks
documents by different authors according to which are most to least
alike, is that correct?  If not, please correct me.

Please also explain to me the value of doing this.  To use an example
from Dave Kathman's superb Shakespeare Authorship web site, two poems
today that begin

  Roses are red
  Violets are blue

do not indicate single authorship.  Just as this is a poetic convention,
or a doggerel convention, so there were similar conventions in the early
modern period.  IF the program works as I think, it may only rank poems
by the number of conventions used.  I do get that your results indicate
that de Vere poems are more similar to Shakespeare's than are Bacon's in
the samples tested.  Rare word, spelling, metrical, and other tests in
the past show that de Vere a very poor candidate to be the author of
Shakespeare's plays, one of the least likely of those tested, so I don't
grasp what you are trying to accomplish.

I note that Oxfordians can't be comforted by your numbers, or they have
to also have to accept all those rare word, spelling and other tests
mentioned above.

Also, 0.436 -> 2.021 and 11.62 and 219.2 didn't communicate much to me.
Yes, these are the statistics of similarity, but what are the statistics
of dissimilarity?  Are these markers VERY similar, or only more similar
than the other poems compared, but not really all that similar when you
get down to it?

Please don't feel attacked.  I probably have missed something crucial in
you explanation.  Will you please take a moment to help me see how I am
missing the point?

All the best,
Mike Jensen

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Karen Peterson-Kranz <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 20 Mar 2001 13:59:07 -0800 (PST)
Subject: 12.0663 Shakespearean Authorship Research
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.0663 Shakespearean Authorship Research

Hardy,

Exhaustive and serious as Paul's project appears to be, isn't this in
open violation of the list rule about The Topic That Shall Not Be Named?

Not complaining.  Just curious.  And a bit confused.

Cheers,
Karen E. Peterson

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sean Lawrence <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 20 Mar 2001 13:19:35 -0800
Subject: 12.0663 Shakespearean Authorship Research
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.0663 Shakespearean Authorship Research

I'm surprised that this has been posted, since usually we don't discuss
the so-called 'authorship question', but I'm wondering whether, as a
control, you're comparing Shakespeare's sonnets to one another.  This
would provide a benchmark to show what work by the same author ought to
look like.  You could then tell whether Edward de Vere's sonnets look as
much like Shakespeare's, as Shakespeare's look like Shakespeare's.

Cheers,
Se

 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.