humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare

On Mar 10, 9:14=A0am, bookb...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 15:43:44 GMT, "Alan Jones"
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > wrote in message
> >news:j529t313nh1m74n52hemu35l580adajoia@4ax.com...
> >[...]
>
> >> I suppose Mary Herbert is seldom mentioned at h.l.a.s. because her
> >> case for consideration of authorship of the canon is so superior to
> >> the usual suspects that she embarrasses other pretensions. =A0It might
> >> be fun to advance her piece on the attributions gameboard by
> >> mentioning some arguments scholars have debated over the years.
>
> >What was her practical knowledge and experience of the public stage?
>
> >Alan Jones
>
> Okay, she evidently sponsored an acting troop, so that's a start. =A0I
> was wondering how close she was to Oxford and his similar vocation.
> I'll check a few sources and get back on this. =A0bb

We aren't allowed to know about Sir Nicholas
Bacon's five-part policy to keep the Protestant
Queen alive, prevent a civil war between
English Protestants and English Catholics (there
were a couple of thousand English Protestants,
and nearly four million English Catholics) and
resist a war with Spain (the Pope had issued
a bull announcing that a 'war without end'
commenced the instant the heretical Queen took
the English throne).

The fourth part of the policy was to create an
English Protestant literary movement to 1) unite
the English people behind their 'glorious history'
(the Shakespeare history plays), 2) advance
literacy at a time when male literacy hovered
around 2%; 3) create a propaganda mechanism
to promote English Protestantism while 4) main-
taining the Bacon-Jewell policy of via media in
all things (the reason Francis, Lord Verulam's
arms feature 'mediocria firm' as Hall and Marston
satirically pointed out when they exposed the
identity of the author of the Shakespeare works.

When the first generation of this project (for
which Sir Nicholas Bacon gets no credit since the
Strats have thoroughly demonized and discredited
his genius son) . . . waned . . . the teenage
Countess of Pembroke stepped into the gap.

The glorious works that came out of the Sidney
faction were the LITERARY extention of Sir
Nicholas Bacon's Elizabethan Protestant literary
movement. The first generation of writers like
Sir Thomas Hoby, Sir Roger Asham, Bishop
John Jewell, the 'illustrious Cooke sisters,
what passed for the English literati, were good but
not gifted.

For some reason, probably because
God likes England best, He sent Sir Nicholas
a polymath genius who essentially dedicated his
life to his father's policies and ideals. Kind of wore
him out at the end since the policy had five parts.
We have eight of Francis, Lord Verulam's letters
to Burghley asking for his help in achieving Part III,
the English academy of arts and sciences but
Cecil was only an obstructionist.

Mary Sidney should be WORLD FAMOUS for
patronizing Part II, the most glorious part of Sir Nicholas'
polies but since we have THE WRONG AUTHOR
we're always told that Southampton, maybe
Essex and Mary's son Pembroke were the patrons
of the Shakespeare works. Mary MADE a literary
movement. We would not have the Elizabethan
Protestant Shakespeare works without her. She's
all 'in them.'

So what were Shacksper's motivation to spend
decades of his life producing history's greatest
literary works?

The fact that the Strats could not figure out his
motive until Sir Sidney Lee sensibly said 'he wrote
for money' says it all.