University of Virginia Library

A FUNERALL ELEGYE . . . NOT . . . BY W.S. AFTER ALL

by
Jill Farringdon

In 1989, Donald W. Foster published his book Elegy by W.S.: A Study in
Attribution,[1] an examination of the authorship of A Funerall Elegye In
Memory of the Late Virtuous Master William Peter of Whipton near Exeter;
by W.S., printed for Thomas Thorpe, 1612. A work of investigative literary
scholarship, it received widespread interest for both its scope and methodology.
Some who read it were persuaded that the initials "W.S." could well
have belonged to William Shakespeare; in fact, so persuaded that the poem
has been included in more than one edition of Shakespeare's collected works.[2]
No doubt confidence in Foster's scholarship was enhanced when he was able
to identify correctly the anonymous author of Primary Colors (Joe Klein),
and went on to be engaged in legal cases as a forensic expert, including that
of the Unabomber. Such popular fame made him a widely known and admired
"expert" in attribution.

However, not everyone was persuaded. Debate over the Elegye's authorship
continued in literary circles, though "debate" is a polite word for
what has been described as a "battle" which raged in the pages of the Times
Literary Supplement.[3] Academics took sides. Vituperation and venom and
sarcasm flew right and left ("Has he read it?"). Foster's own riposte to his
most powerful critic, the Shakespearean scholar and editor Brian Vickers,
asserted "an inattention to facts that would not be tolerated in an undergraduate".[4]
At the same time, one of Foster's supporters wrote that "Vickers
should probably try to keep his foot out of his mouth".[5]

Now it seems that the "battle" is over. In the light of new work suggesting
that the Elegye's author was John Ford, Shakespeare's near-contemporary,
Foster has conceded that he was mistaken: he, too, now believes Ford to be
the likely author,[6] and joins what seems likely to become a literary consensus.
Is there any more to be said?

Well, yes. This is a classic case where recourse to an objective method
could have made a major contribution to such an acrimonious debate. It is
somewhat unseemly (if fun for some readers) for professional academics to
hurl brickbats at each other in public, particularly when arguments over attributing
an obscure seventeenth-century poem can seem to some modern
readers like the mediaeval debates over how many angels can dance on the
head of a pin. The purpose of this article, therefore, is not merely to confirm
the consensus that now appears to be emerging (although it is worth noting,
en passant, that authorship questions are rarely finally settled by consensus:
Freud went to his grave believing that the plays of Shakespeare were written
by the Earl of Oxford). Its purpose is to suggest that where literary debate
exists, a non-literary technique of language analysis has the virtue of avoiding
the pitfalls of serious error which, in this case, led to publishing mistakes
that must be an embarrassment to the editors of the Shakespeare editions
now including a poem likely to be by John Ford.

Furthermore, a comment expressed since Foster's recantation pinpoints
the difficulty for the non-specialist who must rely on the opinion of "experts"
in these terms: such attributions can come to seem only pointless
exercises (or "games") by which anyone can "show" anything which may be
later disproved by another game-player. Thus, the new consensus may seem
mired at the personal level: "And how joyfully the anti-Don-Fosterites dance
around it".[7] This sense of disillusion underscores the urgent need for independent
witness.

For it really does not matter how strong or weak a case critics and scholars
may make in terms of cogent literary analysis: these will be irrelevant where
an objective procedure exists which does not depend on literary judgments,
however well-argued and compelling those may be to fellow-academics. What
has always been needed is an independent method, one which is capable of
delivering a statistical probability in matters of attributing human utterance
in general and which can then be applied to particular cases like this one.
This would by-pass any need for the development of a statistical "Shaxicon"
(Foster), or reliance on rhetorical figures of speech like, say, anadiplosis or
polyptoton (Vickers).

This article proposes that use of the scientific technique of authorship
attribution called "cusum analysis" made it possible, as long ago as 1997, to
show that the poem is certainly by one writer (i.e. it is homogeneous), but that

it is distinguishable from the writing of William Shakespeare. Further, it can
be shown that the short Dedication[8] to the Funerall Elegye is also homogeneous,
but can be distinguished from samples of the writing of Shakespeare,
including his own two Dedications to his poems Venus and Adonis and The
Rape of Lucrece, usefully signed "William Shakespeare".[9] There is, however,
a new and surprising finding: the Dedication signed "W.S." can be distinguished
from samples of the Elegye which it prefaces, indicating that the
author of the one is unlikely to be the author of the other.

In other words, this analysis proposes that the ascription "by W.S." on
the title page and the Dedication signed "W.S." were never reliable indicators
of authorship either of poem or of Dedication. In his book, Don Foster
began by asking that same crucial question: "the first thing we must ask is
whether the initials are not simply wrong."[10] He went on "The answer is
almost certainly no". The answer of cusum analysis was and remains: almost
certainly, yes.

Before proceeding to outline the results of analysis, it will be necessary
to elucidate this technique, which is not as well known as it should be.

The Question of Authorship

Donald Foster's book is packed with detail of the sort that literary scholars
and attribution studies have traditionally used to investigate authorship
of anonymous literary texts: namely, external evidence, where it exists, and
internal evidence involving tables of massive statistical data, vocabulary
counts, the construction by Foster of his special "Shaxicon" based on Spevack's
concordances to Shakespeare's plays, and verbal parallels of specific
lines and allusions from the plays. With all these approaches to attribution,
the literary mind is familiar. Sifting through and understanding such extensive
detail requires focussed concentration, and is a task capable of being
undertaken mainly by professionals who are in a position to weigh the
evidence.

Even then, the use of numerical methods, especially when a computer is
used, remains for many scholars a suspect intrusion into the traditional literary
world: witness the remark by poet Peter Levi that "such [computerassisted]
analysis is almost always complete rubbish", an attitude described
by Stanley Wells in a review of Foster's book as "an extreme point of view".[11]
Nevertheless, it is one which is also widespread: one of Vickers's objections
to Foster's conclusions in his book was his "too great reliance on computerized
statistics" (my italics), a method he found served "an atomistic notion of

style".[12] A Foster supporter, though, saw Foster's study as a statistically unimpeachable
example of "Shakespeare's late style".[13] The point to note here
is that each critic, whether for or against, assumed that Foster's investigation
made claims about literary style. This point will be crucially important as
elucidation of cusum analysis proceeds.

However, the first observation to make when coming to negative conclusions
regarding Shakespeare as possible author of the Funerall Elegye,
by the use of a quantitative method very different from Foster's, is to note
the satisfaction which may arise in the hearts of all those hostile to the use
of computers in literary studies. O joy! The "computing experts" cannot
agree!

The Cusum Technique[14]

This would be a short-lived joy since cusum analysis could actually be
carried out—if more slowly—using an abacus, or pencil and paper, instead
of a computer. Nevertheless, as one who is literary-critical by both training
and inclination, the present writer has a large measure of sympathy with the
dilemma of literary sceptics towards numerical studies, although that sympathy
may be qualified by the observation that the computer is only a mechanical
aid, and that there can be no objection to counting as such.[15] Consider
discussion of the "number" of questions in Macbeth or the "preponderance"
of disease imagery in Hamlet.

Cusum analysis has been used since 1990, both for studies in literary attribution
and also in a forensic setting. It is the invention of A. Q. Morton,
Fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh and a retired Minister in the
Church of Scotland, whose life-time research has been devoted to developing
an objective, scientific method of authorship attribution, one capable of
being independently verified.[16]

The virtue of the method is that it is an attributive measure applicable
to utterance of all kinds irrespective of date of composition or genre, whether
in speech or writing, and has been widely tested. Attribution studies have
been made on a short story newly found and attributed (initially) to D. H.
Lawrence; to new essays by Henry Fielding; to the disputed Famine Diary,
by Gerald Keegan purported to have been written on board a Famine Ship
in 1845; and most recently to a newly-found poem "The Barberry Tree", the
conclusion of joint-authorship by Coleridge and Wordsworth being precisely

identical to that arrived at by literary scholarship. It has been used on the
utterance of children, including a study of Helen Keller from her first year of
language-use at the age of eight.[17]

It works for me and will work for you too (unless you prove to be the
very first exception to its application). As a forensic tool, cusum analysis has
been used in cases in England and Ireland, including the highest courts—the
Appeal Courts in London and Dublin, the Central Criminal Court, Dublin,
and the Old Bailey.[18] So how does it work? Basic to the method is that a sophisticated
analysis of language for attribution purposes must be based on
regular and recurrent usage which is very frequent while also being unconscious
to the user. What has always been needed is a method simple in principle
and reliable in results, and, in cusum analysis, such a method has become
available. The identification of authorship has been found to lie mainly in
the small function words, usually of two, three or four letters, with which
sentences are structured. Obviously, spelling is conventional and has differed
over time, but the syntactic features analysed remain remarkably stable.

In trying to understand why cusum analysis "works" with function words,
it is reasonable to think about an individual's total vocabulary. As any child's
reading scheme will confirm, this may be divided into sections for frequency
of usage. Twenty-five per cent of the time, language use in English consists
of the repetition of very few words. One common scheme gives a mere twelve
words (a, and, he, I, in, is, it, of, that, the, to, was,) followed by another 20
words for up to 35 per cent of normal utterance.

It may be asked how reliable such lists of "most frequent" words may be.
Concordances of authors usually show that these twelve words appear at, or
near the top, of the most-frequent-words lists. A comparison of the lists for
Henry Fielding's novel Joseph Andrews (written in 1741) and for Dylan
Thomas's Collected Poems (1950) yields a remarkable similarity. These two
authors were writing very different kinds of work—novel and modern poetry—separated
by two hundred and fifty years of England language usage;
yet both revealed high-frequency lists of near identical words (the, and, of, in,
I, a, to, you, my, is, that, he were among their top twelve; compare the twelve
most-frequently used words in Shakespeare's total corpus: the, and, I, to, of,
a, you, my, that, in, is, not—the overlap is obvious).

This surely confirms the usefulness of using these vocabulary items for
recognising authorship. Half the time we speak, we are using over and over
again the same function words; two-thirds of the time we speak, we are using
a total of about two hundred and fifty words, which constitute only a tiny
proportion of our total vocabulary. From the remaining thousands of words,
which constitute only a tiny proportion of our total vocabulary. From the
remaining thousands of words, we select those we need to convey content and
meaning, or semantics.

Reading Cusum Graphs and Charts

The principle on which cusum analysis is based is thus extremely simple,
being predominantly based on unconscious, habitual use of function words.
The practise is within the grasp of any academic prepared to devote the necessary
time and effort to learning it; but, to sound a cautionary note, this would
be no rapid process with automatic results. Learning how to use the method
with confidence takes about three to six months of practise on a wide variety
of texts. By starting with the analysis of one's own utterance (as providing
samples of known integrity, a crucial proviso), any researcher is enabled to
gain confidence in the effectiveness of the method. The benefit of "tutorials"
from experienced analysts is also important. Only then may one approach
one's literary problem.

It should be noted here that there have been various attempts at critiques
of cusum analysis: these have all failed in remarkably similar ways, namely,
by misunderstandings of both principle and practise. One misunderstanding
is the notion that the method is based on a single invariable language habit
(counting words of 2 or 3 letters is the one usually selected), which is suitable
for all writers/speakers and occurs in rigid proportions or ratios in each
sentence—an obvious absurdity. There are, in fact, nine language-habit tests
used on any sample under analysis to discover which one will be consistent
for the writer; and these are counted in no simple proportional manner.
Analysing for Authorship devotes a whole chapter to "Answering the Critics",
and each critique is carefully examined there. Despite fairly widespread
awareness of the few critical attempts, there is complete ignorance of the endorsement
of the method's validity by the statistician responsible for writing
the British Standard on cusums—who, further, developed a refinement which
enhances the original method for the satisfaction of professional statisticians.[19]

One impression of the method's "unreliability", apparently widespread
and also described in the book, deserves special mention here since it involves
an interview with Morton by a television company who had asked for two
samples of writing to be analysed for homogeneity. Given Morton's opinion
that they were indistinguishable, the interviewer then dramatically revealed
that they were by a man convicted of corporate crime, and by the Lord Chief
Justice (Taylor). In actual fact, the "crook" was reading out a company report
compiled by his department so that the sample was not his own utterance
at all; moreover, the TV crew had got hold of a sample of writing by the wrong
Lord Taylor![20] As always, the integrity of the text is everything. Given corrupt
data, "wrong" answers will be inevitable: in computer jargon, "garbage
in, garbage out". In Morton can be faulted, it is surely in accepting too readily
samples whose origin he had not personally been able to verify. But to the
viewing public, it apparently seemed Q.E.D. and remains so among some academics

in the attribution field to this day, even if it calls for a certain naïvety
to believe that scientific validity can be decided by a ten-minute TV stunt.
The old "I saw it in the newspapers" seems to have been superseded by the
new "I saw it on TV".

Less well-remembered (or known at all) are the many blind tests where
the technique has been successful, some of them required by the presiding
judge in a court case. The most amazing example of these is perhaps the one
where the "challenger", or person setting the test (Sir Kenneth Dover),[21] did
the counting himself and passed over only the resulting numbers—not the
Greek text—to Morton. Morton promptly discovered the inserted passage.

Properly used, cusum analysis is a useful tool. A major advantage of the
method is that the results of analysing quite small samples can be visually
demonstrated in graphic charts which may be understood by the non-expert
(for example, a juror in a court case). As well as resistance to computers, there
can also be an in-built resistance among literary professionals to looking at
graphs. Yet a graph is only a way of presenting information. The more
familiar we become with pictorial ways of interpretation, the easier it becomes
to "read" the information in that form. How naturally we can now
read, for example, television weather maps: "See those isobars packed in
tightly together", says the TV Weatherperson, and we know we are in for a
spell of high winds.

The sample of utterance under investigation is counted, by cumulative
sum (hence, cusum), first for sentence length and the deviation of each sentence
in the sequence from the average. The second step is to count, again by
cumulative sum, some feature, usually called the "habit", of language-use
within the sentence. The nine tests available to the analyst are based on function
words, as already described. This is not the place to explore why such
features have been found to work, although speculation is intriguing.[22] We
need only point to the success of the method in analysing: natural utterance,
both written and spoken; edited text; translated work; children's writing;
dialect; and disputed utterance. Here we have an attributive measure of
great sensitivity which is objective and which works across both time of authorial
composition, and genre.

The last claim is one which has occasioned a degree of scepticism, and it
is as well to outline the obstacles which must be overcome and habits of
mind which must be set aside before the technique can gain confident acceptance
by literary scholars. The cusum technique has nothing to do with
style or literary value. It is purely quantitative, not qualitative (remember
now those assumptions that statistics were analysing style?). Therefore, such
procedure as comes naturally to the literary critic, that is sensitivity to tone,
image, rhythm; comparison of like with like in terms of genre or date of
composition; the difference between poetry and prose—all these must be
set aside to turn instead to a study of language by measurable units, and that

unit normally the sentence. Whatever the soundness of the literary/stylistic
judgments brought to bear on the Elegye by Professor Vickers or others, such
judgments will remain interpretative rather than objective—indeed, a "game"
to some readers. That is why it is worth drawing attention to a method which
asserted five years ago that the Elegye had nothing to do with Shakespeare.

Attributing Shakespeare

There was no reason why Shakespeare should be an exception to the
method. My own investigation, into analysing first Shakespearean samples
and then samples of Christopher Marlowe, led to a submission for the Calvin
Hoffman prize for attribution.[23]

Shakespeare proved to be homogeneous by more than one test, two language
habits within the sentences of the chosen samples being found to be
highly consistent: that of using three and four letter words plus words starting
with a vowel (qs34lw+ivw) and a second consistent habit, that of using
2, 3 and 4 letter words (qs234lw).

Samples were chosen from Shakespeare's writing, from early and late
work (using modern texts), to show consistency over time: thus, the ending of
The Tempest (38 sentences) and the opening of Venus and Adonis (25 sentences)
were chosen. When considering a disputed text—for example, in a
legal setting—the first requirement is a sample of utterance indisputably that
of the subject of the enquiry. In the case of Shakespeare, we have little personal
utterance except for the short signed dedications to his two poems,
Venus and Adonis (VA) and The Rape of Lucrece (RL): these may be regarded
as authentic Shakespeare. The two dedications together comprise
only eight sentences, yet the advantage of cusum analysis is its ability to show
consistency in short samples.[24] This sample of the two dedications proved a
useful discriminator. One of the sentences was in fact an anomaly: "What I
have done is yours; what I have to do is yours; being part in all I have, devoted
yours". Although cusum analysis has nothing to do with style, this departs so
far from natural utterance as to be an exaggerated rhetorical flourish, a
courtly bow in language—and may well be typical of Shakespeare in literary
terms, which is of no relevance here. It should be stressed that in a longer
sample of sentences, it would become virtually invisible; but in this short
combined sample it slightly disturbed the consistent march of the graphlines,
so was removed to make a clearer illustration.

In analysis, cusum graphs are drawn first of the sentence length (qsld),
and then of the habit (e.g. qs234lw). These are produced on transparencies.
It is then possible to slide the "habit"-transparency over the sentence-length
transparency to see whether the two graph-lines track each other closely, or

even coincide. If they do, the sample may safely be assumed to be homogeneous,
the work of one writer. If the two graphs separate, the sample may be
safely assumed to the "mixed" utterance, or non-homogeneous.

However, for purposes of presentation, instead of using transparencies
the two graphs can be produced as one, to make a cusum "chart": this shows
one graph-line superimposed on the other. Figure 1 shows two graphs superimposed

as a "chart" for the cusum analysis of Shakespeare's two Dedications
(VA and RL combined). The habit shown is one of his two discriminating
habits, the use of three and four letter words plus words starting with a
vowel (qs34lw+ivw). The two lines clearly track each other here, a consistent
habit running throughout, so that a single author is indicated, as we knew to
be the case.

Having shown that Shakespeare was no exception to the method, the
authentic Shakespearean utterance was analysed with samples from The
Tempest and Venus and Adonis. The Dedications blended smoothly with
the selected samples and revealed no separation, the two graph-lines tracking
each other throughout to show a consistent habit at work, confirming homogeneity
for the two combined samples (see figs. 2, 3).

[ILLUSTRATION]

FIGURE 3. Eight sentences of the dedications to Venus and Adonis and The Rape of
Lucrece followed by 30 sentences from The Tempest.

As already reported in the opening paragraph of this article, cusum
analysis of the Funeral Elegye yielded the unsurprising results that the poem
and its Dedication were both homogeneous. Each was written by one writer
(and the many relevant charts produced are available for inspection). Was
that writer Shakespeare?

Firstly, in a combined analysis of the Dedication "by W.S." and the two
Dedications by Shakespeare, the two lines clearly separate, indicating two
writers at work (see fig. 4). Then, this result of mixed authorship was repeated
in subsequent analyses with samples from Venus and Adonis and The Tempest:
the inconsistency with Shakespeare's writing was confirmed. Whenever
either samples from the Elegye, or else its Dedication, were analysed in
combination with samples of Shakespeare, the two-graph lines separated
markedly, indicating not single but mixed authorship (see figs. 5, 6).

Analysis by samples

Obviously, it is only possible to show as illustrations a few of the results
obtained from the process of analysis. These are intended to show how the
method works and to indicate the outcome of the tests. There may be some
unease that what is being reported is based on samples of authors only. But

[ILLUSTRATION]

FIGURE 4. Shakespeare's dedications to Venus and Adonis and The Rape of Lucrece
followed by the Elegye dedication.

FIGURE 5. Twenty-four sentences from Venus and Adonis followed by 20 sentences
from the Elegye.

if these consistently give the same result, whether it be that the samples are
indistinguishable or distinguishable, it is fair to ask how many samples would
become "satisfactory" to the doubtful? Ten—twenty—fifty? There has to be
a point at which the accumulated evidence becomes overwhelmingly persuasive.
Readers disinclined to trust sampling should ask themselves whether

[ILLUSTRATION]

FIGURE 6. Fifteen sentences from the Elegye followed by 30 sentences from The
Tempest.

it is mere chance or co-incidence that the two Dedications which were signed
by William Shakespeare can instantly be shown to be consistent; and then,
whether it is equally co-incidental that they should happen to be indistinguishable
from samples from his first poem and last play but distinguishable
from samples by other writers, like Christopher Marlowe and John Ford.

It would be disquieting, though, for literary scholarship if this investigation
were to seem to set itself up in opposition to traditional methods. As
Morton has written, "Cusum analysis is not some isolated touchstone of
authenticity".[25] In fact, cusum analysis works best when able to support an
attribution made by literary scholars, and this it has done many times. In
addition to literary attributions already cited, Donald Foster's conclusion
with regard to the authorship of "Twas the Night Before Christmas"[26] is
entirely supported by my cusum investigation of that poem's authorship.

Naturally, most important for a positive attribution of the Funerall
Elegye is the virtual consensus that it was John Ford who wrote the poem.
This provided a new putative author to work on. Cusum analysis showed
first that Ford's writing was consistent by the habit of using words of 2, 3 or
4 letters (qs234lw). Then, samples of Ford were shown to be consistent with
samples of the Elegye (fig. 7). Four dedications by Ford can be also shown
to be perfectly consistent with each other and with the poem (fig. 8). In both

[ILLUSTRATION]

FIGURE 7. Combined sample of 42 sentences from John Ford's 'Tis Pity She's a Whore
with 20 sentences from the Elegye inserted.

FIGURE 8. Twenty sentences from the Elegye followed by John Ford's dedications to
The Lover's Melancholy, Perkin Warbeck, Love's Sacrifice, and The Lady's Trial.

these charts, there is a smooth tracking of the graph-lines and no separation:
Ford's writing and that of the Elegye's author are indistinguishable.

The Dedication to the Elegye

We have seen in figure 4 that Shakespeare's two dedications and that of
the Elegye separate markedly, indicating mixed authorship. What was utterly
unexpected was that analysis which combined samples of the poem with its
Dedication (fig. 9), and Ford's signed dedications with it (figs. 10, 11), also
gave the result of mixed utterance: dedications which we know are by Ford
give a consistent result, while the dedication "by W.S." is not consistent with
them. Samples of the poem were consistent with each other, but not with its
dedication "by W.S.". The two graph-lines for these analyses can be seen
diverging widely, indicating mix of authors.[27]

[ILLUSTRATION]

FIGURE 9. Ten sentences of the Elegye with its dedication inserted at sentence 6.

Key Questions

Is the poem A Funerall Elegye by W.S. by one writer? Yes: analysis of
lengthy samples revealed homogeneity.

Can an authentic sample of Shakespeare, his two signed dedications,
be shown to be consistent with other samples by him, but to separate from
samples by another writer? Yes: all analyses with both Christopher Marlowe
and John Ford resulted in separation, visible proof of mixed authorship.

Is the Dedication to the Elegye consistent with Shakespeare's own two
dedications to Venus and Adonis and The Rape of Lucrece? No. The Dedication

[ILLUSTRATION]

FIGURE 10. Combined analysis of John Ford's dedication to The Lady's Trial (6
sentences) with the Elegye dedication (5 sentences) following.

FIGURE 11. Four dedications by John Ford (to The Lover's Melancholy, Perkin War-
beck, Love's Sacrifice, and The Lady's Trial) followed by the Elegye dedication.

to the Elegye was clearly distinguishable from Shakespeare's signed
dedications.

Is the Dedication to A Funerall Elegye written by the same person who
wrote the poem? Cusum analysis has shown that it was distinguishable from
the author.

Are samples of John Ford consistent with samples of the Elegye? Yes: they
were found to be indistinguishable.

The conclusion, therefore, is that cusum analysis has shown Shakespeare
to be extremely unlikely as author of A Funerall Elegye and supports the
consensus that John Ford is the likely author (though not of its Dedication).