Computing Error: Reassessing Austin's Study of Groatsworth of Wit

Abstract

Recently prominent readers in Shakespeare have embraced Warren B. Austin's 1969 computer-based study which concludes that Henry Chettle wrote Greene's Groatsworth of Wit. However, Austin's study is flawed primarily because Austin excludes hosts of data related to his conclusion, while also misreading the data that continuously point to Robert Greene as Groatsworth's author. Austin studies just five of Greene's thirty-two known prose works and rules out studying many of Greene's words on the sole basis of their subject matter, words like repent that connect Greene to the writing of Groatsworth. Austin is also silent about Chettle's stated role as copyist and overseer in preparing and printing Groatsworth. Prominent in this discussion are the six ‘Greene plus’ words Austin identifies, but does not analyse, that appear often in Groatsworth and Greene's other prose writings, but never in Chettle. Especially important are the forty-one rare and unique words presented here that Austin excludes from his study and which constitute direct evidence of Greene's hand in writing the complete text of Groatsworth. Nor does Austin study the orthography of Groatsworth, which differs significantly from Chettle's Kind Harts Dreame and suggests different authors for each work. Austin's findings should, therefore, be set aside, while renewed consideration is given to the lexical and orthographical evidence presented in this article that continues to identify Greene as Groatsworth's author, that is, as someone familiar enough with Shakespeare's early theatre practices to criticize them.