SAT Conference 2021 - 3 - Ros Barber - Problems with the Thomas North Attribution

shakespeareana...
Dr. Ros Barber: A senior lecturer at Goldsmiths College, University of London, Dr. Barber will speak on “Sources, Parallelism, and Problems with the Thomas North Attributions.” at the Shakespearean Authorship Trust conference 2021, Volumes that I prize above my dukedom-Shakespeare’s Sources
If you are interested in the Shakespeare authorship question and/or wish to support the work of the Shakespearean Authorship Trust, why not become a member of the SAT? Click on the website link above.

[@enheduannapax7988]

Love Dr. Barber - Her lecture on the value of uncertainty is a must-see. Also greatly admire her original thinking and willingness to challenge orthodoxy. She’s fearless!

[@CulinarySpy]

Brilliant work Ros!

[@brendanward2991]

Never a dull moment when Ros is lecturing.

[@NorthofShakespeare]

I once again thank Ros Barber for her careful and fair review. Here is a video response. It helps explain why none of the parallel passages linking North and Shakespeare could have arisen just by chance. kzbin.info/www/bejne/ZnjYn5yaZrmcrcU

[@Short-Cipher]

Invaluable perspective. Thank you.

[@dehilster]

Having seen this video and Dennis McCarthy’s rebuttal video, I side with McCarthy on this one. Dr. Barber’s criticisms rely on taking small phrases in isolation. That counter argument would fail in any statistics class. Taking all the phrases together, it is mathematically impossible to state that Shakespeare didn’t use North’s work. Shakespeare was a great producer and one of the first to exploit plays going to the masses. Using North makes total sense historically and fits Shakespeare’s business and creative prowess to know what intrigued the masses and sell tickets. McCarthy’s work stings in too ways: one his is not and accepted Shakespeare scholar and two, McCarthy is right about North. The good news: McCarthy’s statistical analysis cannot be undone or thrown away by those who may have brushed egos. Facts cannot be unseen.

[@johnmeredith7128]

If you are referring to Dr. Barber, her's is anything but a "brushed ego." McCarthy's theory has some valid points to make (as does Barber's), but his conclusions are not factual, and they can certainly be "unseen."

[@rstritmatter]

McCarthy is a sloppy researcher and thinker, as Barber exposed in her critique. His case for North as the author is DOA.

[@avlasting3507]

The sound is too garbled. Perhaps a redo is in order.

[@ronroffel1462]

I found this to be fascinating. In less than five years from its inception, it would appear as if the North candidacy has been effectively quelled by a single presentation lasting less than an hour. Kudos to Dr. Barber for doing this.

[@polmatthiasson9564]

Not a chance. McCarthy has beaten off every criticism… but even if 75% of the evidence for North was dismissed there is no one remotely close to having the 25% remaining. Certainly DeVere has next to zero.

[@ronroffel1462]

@@polmatthiasson9564 Now there is an alternative which provides what Bonner Cutting calls a "unifying explanation" which covers the known facts in the plays: de Vere had an eidetic memory. Everything he saw, felt, or experienced was indelibly etched into his mind so he had access to whatever books - or journals - he happened to read. It explains handily why there are so many accurate translations and close plagiarisms in the plays, including stuff from North. I suspect de Vere had read North's work (he certainly read North's translation of Plutarch) including the unpublished material at some point in his life. Corroborative evidence would be if de Vere had visited North and had access to North's library and books. It is entirely possible.

[@polmatthiasson9564]

Fact is, DeVere isn’t necessary anymore. His original identification by Looney 100+ years ago was brilliant, and Looney’s profiling is genius, but in all this time, even with an army scouring for evidence of Oxford, there is really nothing- but Looney’s original profile fits North to a tee. The issue Ros has is that she simply doesn’t understand forensic linguistics- apparently at all. Her case is beyond weak because of it. It’s not just one string, but the multiplicity of strings compounding the statistical possibility that this was random or kismet. Oxford’s patron and North’s patron were rivals- and in very different camps. Almost impossible that Thomas (or cousin George- both of whom were much older than Oxford), would have allowed him access to their published and unpublished work. DeVere needs to be dropped from the equation. Thomas North’s father Baron Edward North, was married (his 2nd marriage), to Alice Arden’s mother- making Thomas North and Alice Arden step-siblings (This is “Alice of Faversham”) As you are aware, Alice was having an affair with one of Lord North’s servants and schemed to have her husband, Thomas Arden murdered. Thomas Arden was the 2nd cousin to Mary Arden, Shakespeare’s mother- meaning the Norths, the Ardens, and the Shakespeares were connected both by marriage and by controversy. And there are more connections between the North and Shakespeare

[@ronroffel1462]

@@polmatthiasson9564 Yet there are plenty of connections between de Vere's family and that of North, so de Vere could easily have read North's journal. As more evidence piles up, de Vere's candidacy get stronger. How else would you explain that on page 2 of the Epistle Dedicatory of the FF, the name Shakespeare is placed at the 17th position (whether it is on a line, in a sentence, or in a list of words with upper-case letters) no less than 9 times, for example? Find a facsimile and tell me I am wrong, but the facts are there that the author of the Epistle used numbers to allude to de Vere as the real author, just like Ben Jonson - who probably authored the epistle using Hemminges' and Condell's names as allonyms - did in his poem from the same book. Jonson begins his poem on the 17th line, there are 17 words before Shakespeare from that line to the first time the name appears, the name appears as the 17th in the list of poets, and there are 17 lines from the top of page 2 to the line where Shakespeare first appears on that page. Not to forget that if you count the spaces and letters from the decorative upper-case I which begins the poem to the "S" in "Shakespeare", there are 17 of them. So, the pattern is: characters, words, and lines. Oh yes, there are 17 words beginning with upper-case letters between the two names "Shakespeare" on page two as well. Just a friendly project for you to try out. There are facsimiles of the FF online at the Internet Archive which will help out.

[@rstritmatter]

There are other perspectives on McCarthy's methods that are equally devastating.

[@stevenhershkowitz2265]

okay so what does this mean?: "I am but mad north-northwest. When the wind is southerly, I know a hawk from a hand saw." the word "north" appears only very rarely in the Works of Shakespeare there are more anagrams of "Ed Vere" than there are appearances of the word "north"

[@masamus6570]

When you listen to someone like Dr. Barber, you realise how much the term "scholarly" is up for grabs.

[@johnmeredith7128]

In your opinion, which is decidedly uninformed.

[@rstritmatter]

@@johnmeredith7128 Um, what do you mean? She seems quite informed to me. Without an example your comment is tendentious and empty.

[@johnmeredith7128]

I took the comment " 'scholarly' is up for grabs" to mean that Ros lacks scholarship. Perhaps I misread the intent. @@rstritmatter

[@rstritmatter]

@@johnmeredith7128 Imho, she's way more scholarly (usually) than many Stratfordians.

[@johnmeredith7128]

@@rstritmatter I wholeheartedly agree. Dr. Barber and I have corresponding for about five years now.