On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 23:58:14 -0000, "Paul Crowley"
>"Peter Groves"
>news:yIgEj.505$n8.80@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
>>I have a retired surgeon friend who is showing ominous signs of incipient
>> Looney-ism.
>
>Intelligent lay people can pick up on
>the absurdity of the Stratfordian story.
>
>> The problem is that ant-strats lie (e.g. "No-one during his
>> lifetiome referred to Shakespeare as a dramatist") and intelligent retired
>> professionals take them seriously because they don't expect outright
>> mendacity.
>
>This presumably comes from the ambiguity
>of the name.
>
>No-one during his lifetime referred to the
>STRATMAN as a dramatist (one reason
>being his illiteracy). The poet was obviously
>publishing plays over the name 'W. Shake-
>speare' (and minor variants) from 1598, and
>over that name for the long poems in 1593/4.
>
>
>Paul.
Unfortunately, Oxford isn't reported as putting on Shakespeare plays
at his private estate or referring to Shakespeare as a dramatist, but
Mary Sidney Herbert is.
According to Wikipedia,
(quote)
After James I visited her at Wilton in 1603 and was entertained by
Shakespeare's company "The King's Men", Mary moved out of Wilton and
rented a house in London. Though it is certain that the King's Men
attended Wilton, whether William Shakespeare was with them is
uncertain. However, it is reported that there was at Wilton at one
time, a letter in which the Mary Sidney urges her son to attend
Wilton, as "we have the man Shakespeare with us".
(unquote)
As center of the Wilton/Pembroke Circle, she would have been familiar
with all the leading literary figures of London, so would she have
called Oxford "the man Shakespeare"? no, not even while he was alive;
would she have called Marlowe "Shakespeare"? probably not, even if he
was alive and hiding with her; would she have called Stratman "the man
Shakespeare"? of course: he was living and a renowned player, poet,
and playwright who would have been talked about by all in her Circle.