humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare

On Mar 4, 6:19=C2=A0pm, Elizabeth wrote:
> On Mar 3, 2:18=C2=A0pm, lackpurity wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 3, 2:44=EF=BF=BDpm, Elizabeth wrote:
>
> > > _________________________________________
>
> > > Nashe wrote satire in the Menippean style (see McLuhan
> > > on James Joyce's indebtedness to Nashe) so we need
> > > to read Nashe's Dedication to the Menaphon below the
> > > surface of the text. =EF=BF=BDMenippea are 'vertically constructed'
> > > from the surface down, many are deeply punned
> > > (Finnegan's Wake), it really requires genius to write
> > > Menippea.
>
> > > Hamlet is a Menippea, I'll attempt a post explaining
> > > the style.
>
> > > Since the etymological shift in English seems to have
> > > taken place in the 1800s during the industrial revolution,
> > > I rely on earlier etymological dictionaries to look stuff up.
>
> > > Nashe writes:
>
> > > =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD It is a common practise now a dales, amongst a
> > > =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD sort of shifting companions . . .
>
> > > 'Shift,' c. 1300, meant 'movement' or 'a beginning'
> > > from the verb 'shift.' =EF=BF=BDShift c. 1460 meant 'make effort,'
> > > or a period of working time. =EF=BF=BDThe cognate word 'skeft,'
> > > meant 'division, stratum, one of a successive parties
> > > of workmen.'
>
> > > Nashe is accusing the author of Hamlet of working
> > > with or having worked with, a faction of poets. =EF=BF=BDNashe
> > > would know this well, he was targeted by Mary Sidney
> > > Her Ladyshippe who wrote a verse making fun of his
> > > name, she calls him something like =EF=BF=BD'Gnashadoccio'
> > > (McCarthy).
>
> > MM:
> > Preface To Greene's Menaphon
>
> > An excerpt:
>
> > It is a common practice now-a-days amongst a sort of shifting
> > companions, that run through ever art and thrive by none, to leave the
> > trade of noverint whereto they were born and busy themelves with the
> > endeavours of art, that could scarcely Latinize their neck-verse if
> > they should have need; yet English Seneca read by canlelight yields
> > many good sentences, as Blood is a begaar, and so forth, and if you
> > entreat him fair in a frosty morning, he will afford you whole
> > Hamlets, I should say handfuls, of tragical speeches.
>
> > MM:
> > I'd like you to explain your POV more clearly. =C2=A0This paragraph by
> > Nashe seems to fit well with William Shakespeare of Stratford,
> > Elizabeth. =C2=A0It also seems congruent with what Jonson wrote of
> > Shakespeare, "small Latin and less Greek."
>
> Jonson would not let Bacon forget that he had
> 'small Latine and lesse Greek.' =C2=A0

MM:
Oops, you forgot the evidence? His poem was to the Swan of Avon,
remember?

> We don't know
> that Shacksper had any Latin or Greek. =C2=A0

MM:
I'd say that Jonson wrote the truth about his (Shakespeare's)
knowledge of those languages.

> The
> Strats own Authorship, they don't have to prove
> anything. =C2=A0

MM:
Strats have posted reams of Stratfordian evidence. Course, the
problem is that Anti-Strats just ignore it all, calling all the
witnesses liars, etc., etc. They actually expect us to believe in a
gigantic, massive cover-up.

> I go with Shacksper's first biographer
> Rowe who wrote that Shacksper had a year of
> petty school. =C2=A0

MM:
It figures that you would. Of course, this is about as ridiculous as
the opinion of Art Neuendorffer, or that of Crowley.

> That exactly fits his immature signatures,

MM:
There is nothing immature about his signatures. He wrote with a
"shaky" hand, that's all.

> his total lack of papers or manuscripts,

MM:
He made sure that we got the First Folio. All the other is immaterial
and irrelevant.

> the fact that
> the locals didn't know that he was history's greatest
> genius,

MM:
This happens all the time. For example, when I went to India, there
were villagers who had no clue to the greatness of my Master, Maharaj
Charan Singh Ji. They lived right next to his colony. MCSJ had
followers and visitors from all over the world.

Look at what happened to Christ. The crowd chose Barabbas over him.

> the real Stratfordians essentially hated him
> for his devious and often cruel business practices --

MM:
Now, we're into fantasies, with no evidence. He left money in his
will for the poor of Stratford.

> the most scholarly Strat of the modern era, Edwin
> Fripp (Life Member, Stratford Trust) writes that the
> starving locals were rioting in the streets outside the
> malt hoarder Shacksper's house,

MM:
What you write is probably the tip of the iceberg. I'm sure that
William Shakespeare was as charitable as he could afford. Sometimes,
the populace takes advantage of it, and then a line has to be drawn.
It is not the Master's duty to feed everyone. My Master could not
feed all the poor in Punjab, although he did provide a free-kitchen
and a free hospital. There are limits to what Masters can do.

> shouting the ditty that
> Essex would come down and hang the malt-hoarders
> in their doorways whilst the Shackspers hid in New Place
> behind barricaded doors.

MM:
Do you think he could feed all the poor in that region? Really?
Honestly?

> I don't find that a Shakespearean life. =C2=A0

MM:
You're just defaming the Master. That's how I see it. You only
present your hypotheses, or the hypotheses of others. His extern was
honored, Elizabeth. He was "pleasant Willie," the "Swan of Avon,"
"The poet of the age," and all the evidence points to
Stratfordianism.

> Shacksper was
> notoriously 'not aloof' he's a Johannes factotum in the
> theatre scene, he's chasing William Wayte through the
> gutters of Southwark

MM:
What are the facts? And, you're second guessing the Master, again?
Masters have reasons for what they do, whether you understand them, or
not.

> (I think Chettle is suggesting that
> Shacksper gave Greene the horrible beating that killed
> him.

MM:
Incredible, that you have enough gall to post this garbage. He was
pleasant, gentle, loving, etc., etc...

> Nashe writes a blasphemous parody of the Last
> Supper (Greene's last supper) to confirm Chettle's opinion.

MM:
Nashe was always on Shakespeare's side. He considered Shakespeare to
be God. He obeyed him. He must have treated the Wilton cult with a
similar respect. In fact, I remember reading that he praised Edmund
Spenser, another member of the Wilton Cult. It's in the preface to
"Menophon." It's easy to understand why he would parody Greene, who
was just another version of a Judas Iscariot.

> No, Strats have never noticed that but they have given
> us a really magnificent Shakespearean culture so we will
> make allowances. =C2=A0Close readings aren't everything.

MM:
Read closely about what he wrote referring to Spenser. Spenser was
practically worshipped by the Wilton Cult. Close readings support
Stratfordianism, as always, Elizabeth. Chettle apologized, too,
didn't he, for "Groatsworth of Wit?" Are you going in circles,
Elizabeth. Now, even you are supporting Stratfordianism. :-)

> > Nashe was a member of the Wilton Cult, IMO,
>
> No, he was on the other side. =C2=A0

MM:
He was on the side of the cult. Read what he wrote about Spenser, if
you don't believe it.

> Oxford, using his platinum
> American Express card (his title) procured a house for
> his paid poets to write against the Sidney Circle. =C2=A0Nashe
> was one of them.

MM:
Oxford was a member of the cult, also. I don't think he would be
foolish enough to do that, Elizabeth. Could you provide some proof of
that. Someone posted that Oxford even apologized to Sir Philip Sidney
for the tennis court fiasco, and they might have come back on speaking
terms.
Oxford and Nashe were both members of the cult. Nashe might have
written for Oxford, but I doubt he would go against them (the cult.)
I mean really against them, not superficially against them, as
Shakespeare often pointed out both sides of issues in the canon.

> Since Oxford paid for nothin. =C2=A0In his life. =C2=A0Owed hundreds
> of thousands of pounds to London merchants and their
> starving workers, Oxford stiffed the landlady who then went
> after Nashe, et al.

MM:
It's hard to understand some of the events which have been mentioned
in his life. Maybe he made some bad investments?

> Nashe became bitter.

MM:
It must have been hard on him, because they were both members of the
cult, sort of like having a squabble with a family member.

> > Mary Sidney must have been in jest, I'm thinking. =C2=A0I'd think there
> > should have been harmony between them.
>
> No. =C2=A0Not until Mary started thinking genealogically (which
> seems to be a fuction of aging in women) when it occurred
> to her that she could join her newish aristocratic line to
> that of the oldest and most prestitious (although badly f
> ailing) line in England.

MM:
Give me a break, Elizabeth. She was Mary Magdalene. The cult swarmed
around her, as if she was the Queen Bee. Her line went back 1600
years, and she knew that it would continue in the future. She didn't
need any worldly line. She was in a spiritual line of Masters.

> > > The Countess of Pembroke is definitely one of 'Shake-
> > > speare's' =EF=BF=BDshifting companions.
>
> > MM:
> > I'd like to see you expound on this.
>
> > > The Sidney circle continued working (this was about
> > > national survival, not art because the Armada was
> > > nearly finished) for several years after Sidney's
> > > death (or likely murder) in 1586, this shifting Protestant
> > > faction would use anything to unite the English, even
> > > a dead tennis player.
>
> It's not that hard. =C2=A0Henry VIII made a stupendous mess
> of England when he split from Rome (after murdering
> several wives although it was more for money than
> sex, the economy of England was in about the same
> shape ours is in now and for the same reason -- the
> monasteries established by French, Italian, Spanish,
> etc etc orders all over England were sending their
> profits offshore to the mother houses on the Continent.

MM:
The Sidney or Wilton Cult was independent. All that was immaterial
and irrelevant.

> That mony drain is the real reason for the Protestant
> Reformation in England.

MM:
Are you out tiptoeing through the tulips? :-)

> The Established Protestant Church tended to upset the
> millions and millions of Catholics in England -- there were
> a handful of sincere Protestants at that time but they
> were the only highly educated LAY PERSONS. =C2=A0That was
> the secret of the Protestant take over by a group of
> mostly Calvinists who constituted .0001 % of the
> population.

MM:
Now you're going to say that Bacon was a Calvinist? Is that your
hypothesis? Bacon was another member of the Wilton Cult.

> Bacon's father, Sir Nicholas Bacon (who might have become
> a great English national hero had his son not threatened the
> Strats)

MM:
Bacon, himself, wrote that we should respect our predecessors, or we
would repent in the end. The Wilton Cult, including Sir Philip
Sidney, Fulke Greville, Edmund Spenser, Christopher Marlowe, and
William Shakespeare preceded him. Let's remember that. Bacon just
didn't drop out of the sky. Strats didn't come into being until the
Anti-Strats declared war 250 years ago. Let's get your dates
straight? Okay? There were no "Strats," as we know them now, in
those days. Everybody knew by common knowledge that William
Shakespeare was the actor and playwrite. They knew that he wrote the
canon.

> was called the Father of his Country because his policies
> stabilized England in the face of . . . civil war. =C2=A0Jonson calls
> him the greatest Englishman of the Elizabethan era.

MM:
Give him credit for whatever he did. The authorship is something
else, Elizabeth.

> > MM:
> > I fail to see the connection between Nashe, a member of the Wilton
> > Cult, and the protestants. =C2=A0You can explain, if you like.
>
> The Wilton COTERIE (it wasn't a cult)

MM:
It really WAS a CULT. Read the definition of a cult. It was
spiritual. It had charismatic leaders. A coterie could be a cult,
too. I just read the definition of it to make sure. CULT comes from
the word, which means "to hide." It is a "hidden," group. For that
reason, the public thought it was just a group of poets, but it was a
spiritual cult or satsang. A satsang is a discussion of truth, and
that is what they discussed.

> was the
> Protestant faction. =C2=A0

MM:
You REALLY think so? Was it just a front, for the cult?

> Oxford and the Two Stooges,
> Arundel and Howard (Suffolk) were the self-
> appointed Catholic Faction for what it was worth.

MM:
They might have been playing roles. They had to be hidden, for the
same reason that Shakespeare wrote cryptically. Marlowe was not an
atheist. That was just a front. His references to Jove and Apollo
make it clear, what the truth was. They were trying to maintain a low
profile.

> What it did instantly reminds one of the Keystone
> Kops.
>
> Dwight Peck, who got his PhD with a thesis on
> Leicester's Commonwealth (Oxfordians should
> read it) thinks Oxford wrote the doggeral for the
> Catholic factions' pamphlets.

MM:
Well, if he did, he must have had a reason.

> By 'Catholic faction' I mean the three cousins
> above plus the Petre faction of Funeral
> Ellegy fame. =C2=A0The Lancastershire Catholic earls were
> not that much involved, one, I think, was executed
> for sheltering Campion, the Stanleys were pretty
> laid back.

MM:
All right. Oxford might have been trying to teach them, albeit from a
low profile.

> > Who was "Apis Lapis," IYO, Elizabeth?
>
> I've already proven that Master Apis Lapis
> was B-Akon or Bee Stone. =C2=A0

MM:
You hypothesized that. You didn't prove it.

> The great
> Strat critic, Dr. Alexander Grossart, furnished
> a very big clue so he must have seen it first.

MM:
Search for Apis Lapis Egyptian God, and you should be able to see the
truth about it. This is an example of Nashe going cryptic, probably
under the orders of Marlowe or Shakespeare.

Michael Martin

> > Michael Martin