Germaine Greer: [olde-worlde; it drives me nuts;] Well, it's obviously possible and yes, I would. But what worries me slightly is the assumption that that Shakespeare is kind of olde-worlde and not of today and so forth. The reason we speak Shakespearean language is because it is still current for us. People say that Shakespeare is full of cliches, what they don't realise is that we've been copying his way of saying things for a very long time. It drives me nuts that people want to prove that he is the Earl of Oxford.
Anthony Grayling: [apposite; essayist; inhabit;] Can I just comment, by the way, I've been struck by the idea that if the royalties due to Plato, Aristotle an so on could be paid into a fund. I could arrange that would be ... But I think it's a very good idea. I think in the case of this question that it's very very apposite, because Shakespeare is a wonderful resource, not alone, but I think magnificently ahead of the game in getting us to see things about despair, ambition, desire, passion for vengeance, love and all these things. One of the greatest writers about Shakespeare is William Hazlitt, the essayist, talking about the characters. Not the plays so much, their structure and the like, but his investigation of characters, he was so fascinated by the fact that somehow Shakespeare with this marvellous ability he had to be anybody and everybody, to see everything from all points of view, to inhabit these different sensibilities, brought out things about what it is to be human, which when you see a play or when you read a play today, you're very struck by. So I mean I think he remains a great relevance for that point.
an object that is made by a person, especially sth of historical or cultural interest.
very appropriate for a particular situation or in relation to sth.