Methodological observations concerning word rankings and z-score refinements.

This article evaluates the effectiveness of word ranking methods proposed by Ary L. Goldberger, Albert C. Yang, and C. Peng for determining authorship, particularly in the Marlowe–Shakespeare authorship question, comparing them to John Burrows’s Delta method and its successors like Rolling Delta and the General Imposters method. The study finds that word rankings based on high-frequency function words yield crude and unreliable results that fail to capture stylistic nuances, whereas Delta and related methods, which use z-scores over a broader vocabulary, provide more precise stylistic differentiation. Analysis of Marlowe’s plays shows that some works traditionally attributed to him share stylistic features, while others, including Edward II and Doctor Faustus, diverge significantly, suggesting complex authorship or revision histories. Overall, the article concludes that modern statistical approaches outperform simple word ranking in authorship attribution studies of early modern drama.