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).
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).
