Authorship 2018-12-31T15:39:46+01:00 Gert Buelens Open Journal Systems Authorship aims to offer a venue in which to describe diverse historical and discursive settings of authorship, and to grapple with the complex issues of authorial authority, independence or interdependence, and self-fashioning. Introduction 2018-12-31T15:39:43+01:00 Brian Vickers <p>Introduction to the special topic of this issue.</p> 2018-12-13T16:57:48+01:00 ##submission.copyrightStatement## The ‘Dial Hand’ Epilogue: by Shakespeare, or Dekker? 2018-12-31T15:39:44+01:00 Brian Vickers <p>During Shrovetide 1599 a play was performed before Queen Elizabeth at Richmond Palace, an occasion for which an epilogue ‘To the Quene’ was written to be spoken by an actor. Discovered in 1972, its first editors tentatively ascribed it to Shakespeare. Two scholars, Michael Hattaway and Helen Hackett, subsequently ascribed it to Dekker, but John Nance has recently revived the Shakespeare attribution, and the poem has been included in The New Oxford Shakespeare. This essay reviews the evidence, concluding that it was indeed written by Dekker. Jonson has also been proposed, having used the same verse form as the epilogue (trochaic tetrameter couplets), but a comparison shows that Jonson’s are in strict trochaics, with each line clearly separated. Dekker’s usage conforms to that of the epilogue, with more run-on lines and iambic metre interspersed. Hattaway had pointed out that the epilogue is also a prayer for the Queen’s well-being, citing other examples ending plays composed during her reign. The key verb form for such prayers is the optative mode, in which the speaker’s hopes and wishes are expressed by the word ‘may’. A search of Dekker’s plays and civic entertainments reveals that he frequently used such formulae, and in many cases echoes the exact wording of the ‘Dial Hand’ poem. Finally, the Shakespeare parallels cited by Nance are shown to be inappropriate.</p> 2018-12-13T16:57:19+01:00 ##submission.copyrightStatement## In Defence of Kyd: Evaluating the Claim for Shakespeare’s Part Authorship of <i>Arden of Faversham</i> 2018-12-31T15:39:46+01:00 Darren Freebury-Jones <p>MacDonald P. Jackson first argued for Shakespeare’s part authorship of Arden of Faversham in his university dissertation in 1963. He has devoted several articles to developing this argument, summarized in his monograph Determining the Shakespeare Canon (2014). Jackson’s part ascription has led to the inclusion of the domestic tragedy in The New Oxford Shakespeare. However, Jackson and his New Oxford Shakespeare colleagues have either dismissed or neglected the evidence for Thomas Kyd’s sole authorship presented by other scholars. This essay focuses primarily on Jackson’s monograph and argues that the evidence for adding the play to Kyd’s canon, encompassing phraseology, linguistic idiosyncrasies, and verse characteristics, seems solid.</p> 2018-12-13T00:00:00+01:00 ##submission.copyrightStatement## ‘A cannon's burst discharged against a ruinated wall’: A Critique of Quantitative Methods in Shakespearean Authorial Attribution 2018-12-31T15:39:46+01:00 David Auerbach <p>Authorship studies has, over the last two decades, absorbed a number of quantitative methods only made possible through the use of computers. The New Oxford Shakespeare Authorship Companion presents a number of studies that utilize such methods, including some based in machine learning or “deep learning” models.<br>This paper focuses on the specific application of three such methods in Jack Elliott and Brett Greatley-Hirsch’s “Arden of Faversham and the Print of Many.” It finds that their attribution of the authorship of Arden to William Shakespeare is suspect under all three such methods: Delta, Nearest Shrunken Centroid, and Random Forests. The underlying models do not sufficiently justify the attributions, the data provided are insufficiently specific, and the internals of the methods are too opaque to bear up to scrutiny. This article attempts to depict the internal flaws of the methods, with a particular focus on Nearest Shrunken Centroid.<br>These methodological flaws arguably arise in part from a lack of rigor, but also from an impoverished treatment of the available data, focusing exclusively on comparative word frequencies within and across authors. A number of potentially fruitful directions that authorship studies are suggested, that could increase the robustness and accuracy of quantitative methods, as well as warn of the potential limits of such methods.</p> 2018-12-13T00:00:00+01:00 ##submission.copyrightStatement## Gerald Egan, <i>Fashioning Authorship in the Long Eighteenth Century: Stylish Books of Poetic Genius</i> (Palgrave Macmillan, 2016) 2018-12-31T15:39:44+01:00 Christine Woody <p>Gerald Egan, <em>Fashioning Authorship in the Long Eighteenth Century Stylish Books of Poetic Genius</em>. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016. €62</p> 2018-12-13T16:55:53+01:00 ##submission.copyrightStatement## Jonathan Cranfield, <i>Twentieth-Century Victorian: Arthur Conan Doyle and the Strand Magazine, 1891–1930</i> (Edinburgh University Press, 2016) 2018-12-31T15:39:45+01:00 Camilla Ulleland Hoel <p>Jonathan Cranfield. <em>Twentieth-Century Victorian: Arthur Conan Doyle and the Strand Magazine, 1891–1930</em>. Edinburgh Critical Studies in Victorian Culture. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2016. £24.99</p> 2018-12-13T00:00:00+01:00 ##submission.copyrightStatement##