Tuesday, January 27, 2015

Ros Barber Wins Hoffman Prize

Congratulations to our great friend, Dr. Rosalind Barber, for co-winning the 2014 Hoffman Prize for her paper entitled “‘Shortly he will quite forget to go’: Marlowe and the Faustus Epigrams.”  The prize is awarded by the King's School for a "distinguished publication on Christopher Marlowe."

This is Ros’s second Hoffman.  She won the prize in 2011 for her debut novel, The Marlowe Papers.

Congratulations, Ros!

Sunday, December 21, 2014

Rethinking the Sonnets: Ros Barber's Groundbreaking Article on Marlovian Perspective Now Available

Click here to read the first article exploring a "Marlovian" perspective on Shakespeare's Sonnets to be published in a peer-reviewed history journal: Rethinking History (June 2010). Ros Barber's "Exploring Biographical Fictions: the Role of Imagination in Writing and Reading Narrative" is now free to read on open access.

Thursday, September 18, 2014

Stylometrics and Edward II by Peter Farey

One piece of stylometric evidence which seems at first sight to throw quite a large spanner into the Marlovian works appears in Shakespeare, Computers, and the Mystery of Authorship, edited by Hugh Craig and Arthur F. Kinney.1 The book itself is not concerned with the Shakespeare authorship question as such, but with whether certain parts of Shakespeare's works or apocrypha are either by him or by a collaborator. For example, Craig argues quite convincingly for Marlowe having made significant contributions to parts one and two of Shakespeare's Henry VI trilogy. 

It is in a chapter called 'The authorship of The Raigne of Edward the Third' (by Timothy Irish West), however, that the item having most significance for the Marlovian theory appears. It is a chart (Fig.6.8, p.130) in which he is simply testing the validity of an approach being used to see whether Shakespeare wrote either the 'Countess' scenes (I.ii–II.ii) or the 'French campaign' scenes (III.i–IV.iii) in Edward III.

In this graph there are 90 shaded circles representing segments of 6000 words each from 27 plays which are taken to be solely by Shakespeare. There are also 236 diamond shapes representing 6000-word segments from 85 other single-author plays written between 1580 and 1619.

The horizontal (X) axis represents the extent to which each segment includes lexical words2 which have been identified as more characteristic of Shakespeare's works than the others'. The vertical (Y) axis shows the extent to which it uses words more typical of the others' works than Shakespeare's.3 Not surprisingly, they divide into two fairly distinct clusters – the circles in one and the diamonds in another.

In this particular chart, West has removed the three 6000-word segments of Marlowe's Edward II from the data, and treated them as if it were all of unknown authorship. Shown as black triangles on the chart, all three fall quite clearly within the 'other authors' cluster, and not within the 'Shakespeare' one. Here is the result. (The caption should of course read 'segments of Edward II', not 'segments of Edward III'.)

Against this, he shows (pp.127–8) segments from Shakespeare's King John, Henry IV (part 1) and Henry V, all of which fall in the 'Shakespeare' cluster, albeit at the edge nearest to the other one.

There is no doubt that this is a fairly strong piece of evidence that the author of Edward II (i.e. Marlowe) was not also the author of the Shakespeare canon. A few points need to be borne in mind, however, before we all admit defeat.

1. Although the data for Edward II are ignored in arriving at the characteristic words for the 'other authors', all of the rest of Marlowe's plays (except Dido, because of the possible input by Thomas Nashe) are included, whereas they would all need to be ignored too if the intention was to assess Marlowe as a Shakespeare authorship candidate – which it wasn't.

2. The three Henry VI plays, Titus Andronicus and The Taming of the Shrew – those which because of time proximity are most likely to have similarities to Marlowe – play no part in this calculation.

3. This also means that there is no play in the 'Shakespeare' set which is known to have been written less than five years or so after Edward II.

4. Furthermore, the Shakespeare set includes plays as late as The Tempest, written some twenty years later.

This question of date is of crucial importance in any stylometric attempt to assign authorship. Let me give an example which is in essence a very much simplified version of the method employed by Craig and Kinney (and West).

Suppose that there are two bodies of work, one which we will ascribe to playwright A and the other playwright B.

We work out that the frequency with which they each use the words 'most' and 'then' differs greatly. In fact, if we add up the total for both words in a play by either of them and find what percentage of them are 'most' we can be fairly sure that:

* if it's less than 40%, it's by playwright A

* if it's more than 40%, it's by playwright B

(In fact this works for all of A's 21 plays bar one, and all of B's 16 except two. You would need to get a bit more complicated to get 100% in each case!)

Now let’s imagine that we have a play where we suspect collaboration between the two playwrights. We find that Acts 1 & 2 are well below 40% (so probably playwright A) and Acts 3 & 5 well above (playwright B). Act 4 is more doubtful at 43%.

So does this tell us anything at all about whether the two playwrights are different people? No. In fact playwright A is Shakespeare before 1600, and playwright B is Shakespeare after 1600. And Twelfth Night (1601?) was the play in question, if you were wondering.

What we can see, therefore, is that to claim that this tells us they were different people is circular reasoning. If you start with an assumption that they are two different people, and take no account of time, then it’s hardly surprising that this is just what the figures will seem to show.

Don't get me wrong, though. This is a powerful piece of evidence against the Marlovian theory, and it would be wrong to think otherwise.

© Peter Farey, September 2014

1Craig, Hugh; Kinney, Arthur F. (2009). Shakespeare, Computers, and the Mystery of Authorship. Cambridge University Press.
2According to Craig & Kinney (p.224), "Words can be classified into functional words and lexical words (with just a few doubtful cases). Function words have a grammatical function; examples are the, and, she, before, and of. [...] Lexical words [are] nouns, verbs, adjectives, and adverbs which can be substituted for each other in a given sentence." They give king and mother as examples.
3The most characteristic words for Shakespeare (the horizontal axis) are found by calculating the proportion of 'Shakespeare' segments within which a given word appears and adding this to the proportion of 'others' segments within which it does not appear (giving a theoretical maximum of +2). The 500 words with the highest scores are the ones used. For the vertical axis, the same procedure is followed, but finding those words with the highest combination of proportions 'within the others' and 'not within Shakespeare'.

Monday, June 23, 2014

Is the Corpus Christi Portrait Marlowe?

Click here to read The Marlowe Society's post on the June 23 Times (U.K.) article concerning doubts about Marlowe being the sitter of the famous Corpus Christi portrait.  Click here for Ros Barber's June 25 letter to the Times regarding this matter (via our International Marlowe-Shakespeare Society Facebook page).

Sunday, June 15, 2014

Worth Repeating: On the Shakespeare "Front"

A recent exchange on the "Oxfraud" Facebook page (commencing June 6), which consists of comments by International Marlowe-Shakespeare Society members Peter Farey and Daryl Pinksen, has prompted this blog to re-post two older blog articles on the issue of Shakespeare being a front for another, possibly blacklisted writer. In "Philip Yordan: A Modern-Day Shakespeare?" Daryl Pinksen examines some compelling parallels between Marlowe and the Hollywood blacklisting of the 1950s.  In "William Shakespeare, Businessman - Forgotten Genius," Anthony Kellett also explores the life of a literary front man.  We welcome your comments to these provocative pieces. 

Tuesday, May 6, 2014

Monsieur Le Doux was European scholar Catharinus Dulcis (1540-1626) by Geoffrey Caveney and Peter Farey

Readers of this blog are probably well familiar with Monsieur Le Doux, who in 1595 was a tutor at the home of Sir John Harington in Rutland, was instructed on the gathering of intelligence for the Earl of Essex and Anthony Bacon in 1596, and whose name appears briefly in Thomas Birch's Memoirs of the Reign of Queen Elizabeth and in Bacon's papers. We had believed until very recently that Le Doux might have been an identity for the surviving Christopher Marlowe in hiding. But we now know this was not the case.

In fact, this Monsieur Le Doux was Catharinus Dulcis or Catherin Le Doux, a reputable European scholar of the Italian and French languages. He was born in Savoy in 1540, worked for a long time as an itinerant tutor to young noblemen, and became a professor of Italian and French at the University of Marburg in Germany in 1605. He compiled an Italian-Latin dictionary, translated works by Tasso and Terence, and wrote a comedy of his own, Tobie (Tobias). Much information about his life can be found at this German website.

Marburg was the world's first Protestant-founded university, and in fact Dulcis's Protestant beliefs were the reason he had to leave the Continent and stay in England as Monsieur Le Doux in the period 1594-1596.

Co-author Caveney first discovered the identity of Le Doux as Dulcis in a letter Dulcis wrote from London in November 1594 to Sir John Skene. It appears on pp. 156-157 of the book Memorials of the family of Skene of Skene..., published in 1887. The letter is written in French and signed "Le Doulx," and below it, "CATHARINUS DULCIS".  Among other things in the letter,  he mentions the kindness and courtesy of Anthony Bacon.

Further research by the two of us has uncovered abundant confirming information that clearly shows that this man must have been Monsieur Le Doux. Dulcis's own autobiographical sketch Vitae Curriculi Breviarium, written in Latin, mentions his time in England working for Essex and Bacon and even tutoring for the Haringtons, the main activity of Le Doux that we knew of from Bacon's papers. This work of Dulcis also mentions Antonio Perez, Mittelburg, Baron Zeirotine, Count Maurice of Nassau, Archduke Albert and Henri d'Eberbach, all figures who appeared in Le Doux's correspondence as we knew it.

Finally, co-author Farey examined a letter by Dulcis in 1607 and found that the handwriting and signature are so similar to those found in the letters that we have of Monsieur Le Doux, that it is quite clear that they were written by the same person.

©  Geoffrey Caveney and Peter Farey, May 2014

Tuesday, March 25, 2014

DIO, the International Journal of Scientific History on Marlowe-as-Shakespeare

Click here to read Dennis Rawlins's truly compelling (and highly amusing) paper entitled "Marlowe Created Shakespeare" in the latest issue of DIO, the International Journal of Scientific History.  Since 1991, DIO has held an interest in exposing historical hoaxes of various types (read about their work regarding the North Pole discovery here in the New York Times). International Marlowe-Shakespeare Society members Peter Farey, Ros Barber, and Samuel Blumenfeld receive nice plugs in Rawlins's must-read paper.