Talk:Thomas Nashe

Untitled
I have added some sketchy details about Nashe's erotic poem, A Choise of Valentines - is this in order or have I gone beyond the acceptable? RLamb (talk) 19:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised this article doesn't mention the most famous typo in the history of English lit: the printer dropping the "h" in the very famous line from "Summers Last Will and Testament," "And brightness falls from the air." "Air," of course, should be "hair." funkendub

John Taylor
Could someone in the know please point the John Taylor link on this page to the correct one of the many choices on that disambiguation page? Thanks! &mdash; Catherine\talk 13:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Choice of Valentines

 * Hello, RLamb. I noticed you reverted a good-faith edit and you also removed two foot-note references. I read the message you put on my user talk page, and I believe it’s more appropriate to communicate on the talk page of this article. As I understand your point, it appears that you did that reversion, because it is your opinion that the authorities that I used and cited are to be ignored and removed from the article because you’ve found an authority that in your opinion is more correct on the subject. Why? Because you’ve found a source that has a more recent date. However you are very much mistaken when you seem to suggest that the sources you removed are dated 1920. You need to look more carefully at what you have deleted. As you know, there is not an over-abundance of factual evidence that would help the experts and authorities decide this case, and interpretations that are based the evidence that exists can go either way.  It would be interesting for a reader of Wikipedia to know that there are different interpretations, and for that reader to be able to research them all. But for you to exclude one expert interpretation, because you seem to have a personal preference, is something that is not supported by Wikipedia policy. (WP:ROWN) It would be better for both opinions to exist in the article.  I will take a look at the article and try to reword it so that both interpretations by the various authorities — along with the foot-notes, can coexist.GretDrabba (talk) 15:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi GretDrabba, thanks for replying and explaining your edit. The authority I cited is the article on Nashe in the Dictionary of National Biography, which was written by Charles Nicholl, who you may recognise as also author of the most scholarly Nashe biography, 'A Cup of News'(1984)?  In that book, Nicholl discusses the connection between Nashe and Strange at some length and, to cut to the chase, concludes: 'Strange is undoubtedly the 'Lord S' to whom Nashe addressed his bawdy poem, 'The Choise of Valentines' or 'Nashe's Dildo'.' In an explanatory footnote to that statement Nicholl expands: 'That 'the right Honourable the Lord S.' is Strange is suggested by Nashe's reference to his prowess as a poet ('sweete flower of matchless Poetrie') and his Lancastrian blood ('fairest bud the red rose ever bare.') The latter rules out the only other plausible competitor, the Earl of Southampton.'
 * You're wrong to suppose I made the edit on the grounds of personal preference - neither Strange nor Southampton mean a thing to me. I changed your edit because the foremost Nashe scholar of the day is clearly in no doubt about the identification, and while it may be fair to let Wikipedia readers know that Southampton was once considered a candidate, it would actually be misleading to suggest that scholarly opinion today is even-handed on the matter. Unless you know of an authority of Nicholl's weight who has recently come out to champion the case for the Earl? If you don't, I think you should re-edit the paragraph to take account of the current consensus.RLamb (talk) 19:46, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi RLamb, thanks for the message. I was very glad you mentioned that Charles Nicholl wrote the Nashe entry to the National Biography.  I’ve read Nicholl’s books, and I agree with you that he is a great writer and scholar.  And I appreciate his thoughts on the “Lord S.” attribution.  There are a few recent authors I’ve run across who have a different opinion, though you’re right, it may not be even-handed.  But whoever’s right or wrong, I do think that we should keep both ideas in the article — this is based on my understanding of the principles of Wikipedia — principles that are accepting of ideas that are made in good faith and that are the referenced ideas of good scholars or writers.  And both sides have interesting points.  If having two sides might encourage people to check out Nicholl’s writings  — I wouldn’t mind.  I thought his words about the rose and rose bud are very interesting. I think that it might be good to get that rosebud idea into the Nashe article. Wikipedia seems to have plenty of room, and Nashe deserves it.  It might be a compromise — to allow both ideas to stand, but to flesh out things out a bit. I’m going to get hold of the book you mentioned — it may take a week or two.GretDrabba (talk) 05:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Good idea, GretDrabba - and good luck getting hold of 'A Cup of News', I had to buy my own copy in the end:) Yes, the 'red rose' reference carried weight with me too; that and Nicholl's other remarks about the clues to links between Nashe and Strange, which I won't spoil for you by detailing here. (I also have a private reservation, that referring to the Earl of Southampton as 'Lord S(outhampton)' might be odd? 'My lord of Southampton' certainly at times - but plain 'Lord Southampton'?) I certainly agree the Nashe article could do with expansion. I haven't much interest in either Strange or the Earl, but I am fond of Nashe and think him a neglected author.RLamb (talk) 16:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC) 11:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, RLamb. I thought I’d add this:  Many people consider that Lord S. is Lord Strange, but there are some who think that Lord S. is Southampton, as well as some who haven’t been persuaded one way or the other.  I believe that their thoughts are: that “Choise of Valentines” seems to have a kinship or an affinity with, and possible references to Shakespeare’s “Sonnets” and “Venus and Adonis”, and in the Sonnets the rose image is used in connection with Southampton — without intending to suggest the House of Lancaster.  So for them it holds open a door to the possibility that in “Choise” a rose is simply a rose.  Of course in the quote you point out ('fairest bud the red rose ever bare.’) it does sound like a possible reference to a family tree.  Also, there was a certain amount of “buzz” regarding Southampton’s lusty sexuality that poets seemed to be celebrating in print (Shakespeare and at least one other writer).  But in contrast, Strange seemed to be a proper married man who was not attracting such buzz. (I thought, in at least a partial response to what you said, I’d mention this for what it’s worth.)GretDrabba (talk) 15:03, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Possible Self-Promotion
A user named DonnaNMurphy (no Wiki page) has recently edited articles on authors Thomas Nashe, Thomas Dekker, and Thomas Middleton to include references to a 2012 book by, interestingly enough, Donna N. Murphy. Edits by this user to the article "Marlovian Theory of Shakespeare Authorship" have already been tagged as "possible conflict of interest". (Murphy is a known supporter of Marlovian Theory). The Wiki text edits themselves are rather disingenuously worded, given the username, and subjectively interpreting existing material to boost one's own unprovable theories is not "evidence" in any factual sense. If Murphy herself made the changes then it appears she is using Wikipedia to promote her book and give its speculations parity with the historical information in the articles. If someone else is using her name they are not editing "in good faith" anyway. I'm undoing/reverting the Nashe, Dekker and Middleton edits until administration rules on this. Cheers. TheBawbb (talk) 16:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, why put Nashe among 17th century people? No positive news about him after 1599. He is a typical late elizabethan personage. Nothing else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.23.235.159 (talk) 09:28, 11 September 2014 (UTC)