"Nothing can extinguish my interest in Shakespear. It began when I was a
small boy, and extends to Stratford-upon-Avon, where I have attended so
many bardic festivals that I have come to regard it almost as a
supplementary birthplace of my own. No year passes without the arrival
of a batch of books contending that Shakespear was somebody else. The
argument is always the same. Such early works as Venus and Adonis,
Lucrece, and Love's Labour's Lost, could not possibly have been written
by an illiterate clown and poacher who could hardly write his own name.
This is unquestionably true. But the inference that Shakespear did not
write them does not follow. What does follow is that Shakespear was not
an illiterate clown but a well read grammar-schooled son in a family of
good middle- class standing, cultured enough to be habitual playgoers
and private entertainers of the players. This, on investigation, proves
to be exactly what Shake- spear was. His father, John Shakespear, Gent,
was an alderman who demanded a coat of arms which was finally granted.
His mother was of equal rank and social 'pretension. John finally failed
commercially, having no doubt let his artistic turn get the better of
his mercantile occupation, and leave him unable to afford a university
education for William, had he ever wanted to make a professional scholar
of him. These circumstances interest me because they are just like my ...

*SARCASM* , n. [F. sarcasme, L. sarcasmu, Gr. to tear flesh like dogs,
to bite the lips in rage, to speak bitterly, to sneer, fr. , , flesh.]
A keen, reproachful expression; a satirical remark uttered with some
degree of scorn or contempt; a taunt; a gibe; a cutting jest.
.
"The *SARCASMS* of those critics who imagine
. *OUR ART* to be a matter of inspiration." - Sir J. Reynolds.
-----------------------------------------------------------
George Bernard Shaw *blatant sarcasm* :
http://www.wikilivres.info/wiki/index.php/Shakes_versus_Shav

< my eminence, such as it is. I thought my career as a playwright was
finished when Waldo Lanchester of the Malvern Marionette Theatre...

What brilliant hermeneutical insight. I guess that's another one for the
anti-stratfordian 'hall of fhame'.

Art Neuendorffer wrote:

On May 1, 6:18 am, Ignoto tarpit.org> wrote:

The Historian gmail.com> wrote:

---------------------------------------- ...

On May 1, 6:18 am, Ignoto tarpit.org> wrote:

"Ignoto" tarpit.org> wrote in message
news:7GhSj.6680$ko5.3922@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

It is known that 'IQ' has increased substantially
in the whole population over the last 100 years.
This is explained by a much greater familiarity
with abstract reasoning, and examples of
arguments of this nature are quoted. They were
common (in say legislatures) 100 years ago, but
today they are rare. Bad reasoning can be seen
for what it is, no matter whose name is attached
to it.

Bernard Shaw dead is smarter than Art Neuendorffer and Paul Crowley
alive!

On 2 Maj, 07:55, "Robin G." proaxis.com> wrote:

Bernard Shaw was a typical stratfordian: a smug, complacent, self-
righteous and unbearably self-satisfied philistine, saved only by his
sense of humour.

Mark Twain was much funnier though, and, if that is a merit with GBS,
even less educated.

C(hris)

"Paul Crowley" slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote in message
news:JUqSj.25264$j7.467232@news.indigo.ie...
[...]

"Undoubtedly"? The evidence you adduce for the illiteracy of either parents
or children is hardly strong enough for that. At best you could justify
"possibly".

It's amusing that you demanded some essay by Shaw on Shakespeare, and when -
I suppose unexpectedly - you got it you could only try to wriggle out of its
rather forthright Stratfordianism. (This isn't, of course, the only comment
by Shaw on Shakespeare: you could look at his prefaces to "Caesar and
Cleopatra" and "Cymbeline Refinished": you won't like the latter at all.)

Alan Jones