The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 24.0342 Tuesday, 16 July 2013
Date: July 16, 2013 2:27:23 PM EDT
Subject: Re: SHAKSPER: Stylometrics
I read with keen interest Ward Elliot’s stylometrics description and Larry Weiss’s transcript of the opinion against Michael Egan’s attribution of Thomas of Woodstock to Shakespeare—three cheers to the two.
As a recent subscriber, I now get the hot-ish air between Weiss and Egan et al.
Indeed, stylometrics is as fascinating as it’s new to me, a recent English major degree holder. As far as I can tell, the methodology sounds sound to me. And I probably would have considered it for grad school had I heard of it. That its methodology is fairly replicable potentially gives the humanities, if honest, a cause for consensus. Surely, problems of this anti-humanistic seeming approach for the humanities I reckon have been chewed over many times—traditionalists (anti-stylometrists?) v. non-, as Elliot mentioned; for myself, stylometrics seems like a branch of philology, similar to the methods used to expose The Constantine Donation as a forgery and Ad Herennium as not Cicero’s.