Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2013 :: July ::
Stylometrics

 

 

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 24.0349  Friday, 19 July 2013

 

[1] From:        Joseph Egert < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >

     Date:         July 18, 2013 2:37:00 PM EDT

     Subject:     Re: SHAKSPER: Stylometrics 

 

[2] From:        Larry Weiss < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >

     Date:         July 18, 2013 4:56:49 PM EDT

     Subject:     Re: SHAKSPER: Stylometrics

 

 

[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------

From:        Joseph Egert < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >

Date:         July 18, 2013 2:37:00 PM EDT

Subject:     Re: SHAKSPER: Stylometrics 

 

Many thanks to Ward Elliott for his lucid summary of stylometrics. Indeed he has been most gracious in providing much of his raw data as well as computational assistance to those contemplating a challenge to his ‘merry’ bet. He has likewise been forthcoming in acknowledging, for the most part, trivial errors in his own tabulations.

 

Let us, for the moment, overlook the circularity that lies at the heart of early modern stylometric methodology.

 

‘Tarry a little, there is something else.’ Dr Elliott claims “nobody has enough confidence in the negative case to pursue it, even for a thousand pounds”.

 

A thousand pounds, “tis a good round sum’, but is it enough? Does Ward Elliott have enough confidence in the positive case to ‘gild’ his offer with ‘more ducats’? Say, triple the bet to 3000 pounds, or double this, then ‘double 6000 and then treble that’? To deserve the victory he so desires to gain, should he not ‘hazard’ far more? Or is this a ‘cold suit’ on my part.

 

Then again, who shall be our ‘wise and upright judge’, our ‘Daniel come to judgment’, in deciding who has won or lost the bet? (We want no imposters here!) And how will payment be enforced. Will the conditions be ‘expressly nominated in the bond’? If Ward Elliott loses and pays ‘not on such a day’, what will he forfeit? What will make ‘good’ Elliott ‘look he keep his day’?

 

Don’t feel pressured, Doc. ‘I pray you tarry, pause a day or two/ Before you hazard’ more. ‘Art thou contented’ Doc? ‘What dost thou say?’

 

Let truth come to light!

 

Joe Egert

 

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------

From:        Larry Weiss < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >

Date:         July 18, 2013 4:56:49 PM EDT

Subject:     Re: SHAKSPER: Stylometrics

 

>Jed Serrano has read Larry Weiss’s vicious and inaccurate attack 

>on my ascription of 1 Richard II to Shakespeare and finds it 

>convincing. However he hasn’t read my original statement 

>nor my reply. When you have done so, Sir, let’s hear from you again.

>

>Michael Egan

 

Since this post has nothing to do with the terminology thread which Hardy has halted, I feel at liberty to respond.  

 

“MY” “vicious and inaccurate attack” was the unanimous opinion of three independent scholars who had no dog in the fight and were selected in accordance with procedures agreed upon by Egan. 

 

In any event, I join Michael’s invitation for Jed or anyone else to plow through his 2200 pages of densely packed single-spaced small type “exegesis” and then evaluate the independent panel’s opinion.  In the meantime, if there is anyone here who agrees with Egan that he proved “by clear, convincing and irrefutable evidence” that Shakespeare wrote Thomas of Woodstock, which he calls 1 Richard II, please make yourself known.  Anyone?  Anyone . . .

 

 

Other Messages In This Thread

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.