Yes, North (and no one else) undoubtedly used the experiences documented in his journal for "Henry VIII," "The Winter's Tale," and other plays later adapted by Shakespeare
An excellent rebuttal worthy of a seasoned expert witness. The hallmark of good expert testimony in technical matters like statistics and probability are the consistent application of an appropriate methodology. Your piece does just that and demonstrates that your critic has failed to use the right methodology and is inconsistent in the application of the methodology she used.
The trouble I have with the argument from verbal parallels is that such parallels have been found by proponents of other authorship candidates. I recently read "The Bacon Shakespeare Question," by NB Cockburn. He says that an earlier Baconian found more than 1600 parallels between Bacon and Shakespeare. Cockburn himself rejects several hundred of these but still allows about 1100. He includes more than 100 examples, including many from Bacon works unpublished in his lifetime, and from Bacon’s private journal. It would be interesting to subject some of these findings to an online search and see how they compare to the North parallels. (I guess I could try it myself.)
Marlovians also find many parallels between their man and Shakespeare. AD Wraight offers quite a few examples. Of course it’s possible to argue that Shakespeare was imitating Marlowe, or vice versa if we date Shakespeare's works earlier.
I agree with your general point that the entire context of each parallelism must be considered, but I wonder if the textual parallels cited in support of other candidates, especially Bacon, might undermine the case for North.
Hi Michael, what's important is that the recycled phrases and lines are actually distinctive --whether unique or extremely rare--not *commonplaces.* Every large pair of works share numerous, random 4-word strings, 3-word strings, word-pairings, etc. And I've already checked all the verbal parallels of the other candidates--Bacon, Oxford, Neville. And they have zero unique or rare verbal parallels. Zero. North has thousands of unique or rare ones, essentially none of which can be dismissed as coincidental. Now, Marlowe and Shakespeare do have a small number of shared phrases and lines that are distinctive (and can't be dismissed as coincidence)-- but most of the Marlowe connections are with *adaptations* of Shakespearean plays that Marlowe himself worked on (like Taming of A Shrew [not Taming of the Shrew], the bad quartos of 2H6, and 3H6). The other verbal connections, which are few, are the result of Marlowe borrowing from North's plays (with which he was familiar), or Shakespeare (likely not North) advertising Marlowe's plays that Shakespeare also produced. We find advertisements of other Lord-Chamberlain's/King's Men plays throughought the canon. North not only has thousands of *unique* or *very rare* Shakespearean lines and passages but we even find the borrowed passages or lines in *unpublished* material that would later appear in the Shakespeare canon--and these borrowed passages and lines--*can't* be dismissed as coincidence. And that's game over. And we've done this with four different unpublished works (North's Journal, North's marginal notes in the Dial, North's marginal notes in Fabyan, and North's pre-published verson of Nepos Lives. We've also found an unpublished manuscript written by George North that was also used for the plays.)
An excellent rebuttal worthy of a seasoned expert witness. The hallmark of good expert testimony in technical matters like statistics and probability are the consistent application of an appropriate methodology. Your piece does just that and demonstrates that your critic has failed to use the right methodology and is inconsistent in the application of the methodology she used.
The trouble I have with the argument from verbal parallels is that such parallels have been found by proponents of other authorship candidates. I recently read "The Bacon Shakespeare Question," by NB Cockburn. He says that an earlier Baconian found more than 1600 parallels between Bacon and Shakespeare. Cockburn himself rejects several hundred of these but still allows about 1100. He includes more than 100 examples, including many from Bacon works unpublished in his lifetime, and from Bacon’s private journal. It would be interesting to subject some of these findings to an online search and see how they compare to the North parallels. (I guess I could try it myself.)
Marlovians also find many parallels between their man and Shakespeare. AD Wraight offers quite a few examples. Of course it’s possible to argue that Shakespeare was imitating Marlowe, or vice versa if we date Shakespeare's works earlier.
I agree with your general point that the entire context of each parallelism must be considered, but I wonder if the textual parallels cited in support of other candidates, especially Bacon, might undermine the case for North.
Hi Michael, what's important is that the recycled phrases and lines are actually distinctive --whether unique or extremely rare--not *commonplaces.* Every large pair of works share numerous, random 4-word strings, 3-word strings, word-pairings, etc. And I've already checked all the verbal parallels of the other candidates--Bacon, Oxford, Neville. And they have zero unique or rare verbal parallels. Zero. North has thousands of unique or rare ones, essentially none of which can be dismissed as coincidental. Now, Marlowe and Shakespeare do have a small number of shared phrases and lines that are distinctive (and can't be dismissed as coincidence)-- but most of the Marlowe connections are with *adaptations* of Shakespearean plays that Marlowe himself worked on (like Taming of A Shrew [not Taming of the Shrew], the bad quartos of 2H6, and 3H6). The other verbal connections, which are few, are the result of Marlowe borrowing from North's plays (with which he was familiar), or Shakespeare (likely not North) advertising Marlowe's plays that Shakespeare also produced. We find advertisements of other Lord-Chamberlain's/King's Men plays throughought the canon. North not only has thousands of *unique* or *very rare* Shakespearean lines and passages but we even find the borrowed passages or lines in *unpublished* material that would later appear in the Shakespeare canon--and these borrowed passages and lines--*can't* be dismissed as coincidence. And that's game over. And we've done this with four different unpublished works (North's Journal, North's marginal notes in the Dial, North's marginal notes in Fabyan, and North's pre-published verson of Nepos Lives. We've also found an unpublished manuscript written by George North that was also used for the plays.)