Catholic Shakespeare - His Plays had so many dirty sex jokes

[NguyenKimPhat]

Nope. I concentrate on how poorly written the books are. In another century, no one will be reading anything Twilight related, but Shakespeare will still be read the world over. It has little to do with morality, and almost everything to do with the difference between excellent literature and teenage-angst claptrap.

– Mark L. Chance.

How can you say something so wrong! These books promote chastity and in the final book, there is a prevalent pro-life / antiabortion message. By the way, Stephanie Meyer is an English Literature Major → In other words, she has a degree from an actual college!

 

[Saul_DelTarso]

A degree is no proof of talent, nor even skill.

 

[Dandelion_Wine]

I concentrate on how poorly written the books are. In another century, no one will be reading anything Twilight related, but Shakespeare will still be read the world over. It has little to do with morality, and almost everything to do with the difference between excellent literature and teenage-angst claptrap.

You beat me to it!

 

[Tantum_ergo]

How can you say something so wrong! These books promote chastity and in the final book, there is a prevalent pro-life / antiabortion message. By the way, Stephanie Meyer is an English Literature Major → In other words, she has a degree from an actual college!

And of course Shakespeare had small Latin and less Greek and didn’t have a college degree. . .

I’m not sure whether you’re arguing that great literature can’t be great if the characters or situations are less than ideal (in which the Bible itself would be thrown out). . .or that literature of the popular type which has a message you personally see as positive and characters you like should be ‘preferred’ to those nasty classics. . . .?

 

[LilyM]

And of course Shakespeare had small Latin and less Greek and didn’t have a college degree. . .

I’m not sure whether you’re arguing that great literature can’t be great if the characters or situations are less than ideal (in which the Bible itself would be thrown out). . .or that literature of the popular type which has a message you personally see as positive and characters you like should be ‘preferred’ to those nasty classics. . . .?

Amen! Jane Austen called herself ‘the most unlearned and uninformed female who ever dared to be an authoress’ - nonetheless her works are absolute classics. And Charles Dickens was quite poor as a youngster, and was working full time in his teens - he seems not to have had much in the way of formal education either.

 

[Contarini]

How can you say something so wrong! These books promote chastity and in the final book, there is a prevalent pro-life / antiabortion message.

That does not have anything to do with what he said. A pro-chastity and prolife message does not make great literature, nor is it incompatible with “teenage-angst claptrap,” You haven’t refuted the post.

Furthermore, a case can be made that the books don’t promote full-fledged chastity, but rather abstinence from intercourse. I think it’s great that the books do promote abstinence, but I’m not convinced that they give young people a truly healthy model for romantic relationships.

A friend of mine who teaches theology at Wheaton College has written a book about the Twilight series. It’s Augustinian theology for teenagers (my friend’s book, not Twilight). I recommend it highly (which of course doesn’t mean I necessarily agree with absolutely everything she says).

By the way, Stephanie Meyer is an English Literature Major → In other words, she has a degree from an actual college!

That is supposed to make her a great writer?

I am an English major too. That doesn’t make what I write great or even necessarily good literature.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

There is a program on EWTN - I forgot the name of that program,but that program celebrates the fact that William Shakespseare was a catholic man but isn’t it true that so many of his plays were sexually dirty - for example the first few pages of Romeo and Juliet were filled with dirty sexual jokes.

You would probably take heart, then, from the work of a colleague of mine, who’s working on a book arguing against the thesis that Shakespeare was Catholic. My colleague wrote his dissertation on another playwright of that era, Thomas Middleston (who makes Shakespeare seem like a Victorian prude), and argued that Middleton’s use of bawdy and scurrilous language was an expression of Calvinist theology! At least that’s what I understand–I haven’t read the book.

I don’t know how much of a role Shakespeare’s bawdy humor will play in the present book–perhaps none.

Anyway, undoubtedly Catholic authors (which Shakespeare is not–the evidence is indirect and circumstantial) often used bawdy humor–have you read any Chaucer?

Why are we catholics proud that William Shakespeare was a catholic man? His plays were so dirty with sexual jokes. We orthodox catholics so quickly condemn Twilight, saying that it’s evil b/c of the vampies, yet, when it comes to classical literature like Shakespeare that is so dirty, we openly and blindly embrace Shakespeare but condemn Twilight. If Twilight had the same dirty jokes in Shakespeare’s plays, we would so quickly condemn Twilight, but then when William Shakespeare, a fancy English playwright, writes sexual jokes, we justify his jokes by saying everyone has sexual organs. Do you see the double standard here - Why does it even matter is Shakespeare was Catholic? His plays had so many sexual jokes. Do we condemn Twilight just to feel better about ourselves and be self-righteous? If we condemn literature like Twilight we should think twice about celebrating Shakespeare!

As others have said, the best reasons to criticize Twilight are not based on the simple fact that it has vampires. I myself (though no orthodox Catholic) would not condemn Twilight. But I certainly think there is a lot more spiritual as well as artistic value in Shakespeare, dirty jokes or no!

I think you overvalue the importance of dirty jokes in determining the moral character of a work of literature. Shakespeare’s plays frequently promote chastity. Renaissance people didn’t think that being chaste meant that you had to ignore just how funny sex is! (Sex is funny because we are rational animals–if we were just animals it would be just another natural function, and if we were angels we wouldn’t have sex. So in that sense one could see sexual humor as an expression of Christian orthodoxy.) As the Merry Wives of Windsor put it, “Wives may be merry, and be honest too.” (Honest, here, means chaste.) I think that the kind of chastity found in Merry Wives is much preferable to the kind found in most Victorian novels–or for that matter in Twilight!

Edwin

 

[mlchance]

How can you say something so wrong!

Nothing I said was wrong. The Twilight books are poorly written. I gave up after the first two. The movies are even worse.

BTW, I have a degree from an “actual college” too. History, in my case. Minored in English, philosopy, and theology. I must also be, therefore, be an excellent writer. Awesome.

Now to pen a series of poorly written, thinly plotted books populated by caricatures in emotionally abusive relationships!

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

There is a program on EWTN that celebrates the fact that William Shakespseare was Catholic - but isn’t it true that so many of his plays were sexually dirty - for example the first few pages of Romeo and Juliet were filled with dirty sexual jokes . . . the most famous Shakespeare play - Romeo and Juliet → begins with the most dirty sexual jokes, full of immorality and digust.

(I think Hamlet is his most famous play, but that’s beside the point)

Shakespeare may have been Catholic. No one knows for sure. It would be something to be proud of because he is the best playwright the world has ever produced, the best English-language writer, and perhaps even the best writer, period.

Why are we catholics proud that William Shakespeare was a catholic man? We Catholics so quickly condemn Twilight, saying that it’s evil yet, when it comes to classical literature like Shakespeare that is so dirty, we openly and blindly embrace Shakespeare.

The difference is that Twilight is garbage (as literature) and morally troubling. Shakespeare as a playwright and poet - despite the dirty jokes - literally blows the competition right out of the water - theatrically, literarily, and yes, even morally.

Do you see the double standard here - Why does it even matter is Shakespeare was Catholic?

I actually agree here. Whether he was Catholic or Protestant shouldn’t matter - he should be appreciated, celebrated, and his plays performed as long as this world endures, no matter what religion he was.

His plays had so many sexual jokes. Do we condemn Twilight just to feel better about ourselves and be self-righteous? If we condemn literature like Twilight we should think twice about celebrating Shakespeare!

I appreciate what you’re trying to do, but Twilight and Shakespeare are literally on opposite ends of the literary spectrum. You can’t get any better than Shakespeare, and you can’t really get much worse than Twilight (in terms of published literature, at least).

And I say this not as a literary snob who disdains all popular literature. I do not disdain all popular literature. I love the Harry Potter series, for example, and think it’s quite brilliant. I despise Twilight not because it’s popular, but because it’s junk. Shakespeare - despite the dirty jokes, as I said above - is also far from morally troubling. I cannot begin to describe what he has achieved in this thread; I do not have the eloquence to do so. I myself have only begun to unlock and experience what he has given us.

But I wish to do so. That’s why this fall I’ll be starting as a graduate student at Mary Baldwin College. I’m doing their Master of Letters program in Shakespeare and Renaissance Literature in Performance.

And by the way, Shakespeare’s not the only one. Geoffrey Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales are the very pinnacle of English medieval Christian literature, and they’re dirtier than Shakespeare, in my opinion.

So are you saying that baudiness and dirty jokes are moraaly acceptable? Just because baudiness was acceptable at that time, writers should have a sense of decency when writing. Furthermore, even though the Catholic church does teach that the body is holy, the Catholic Church never tolerated filthiness in language.

What about The Canterbury Tales that I mentioned above? That was a very Catholic era.

You’re not completely wrong, though. Filthiness is bad, but Shakespeare isn’t really “filthy” - it’s sexual innuendo and things like that. There’s no pornography of any kind.

And Shakespeare quite admirably does full justice to everything and everyone he portrays. As Della pointed out, some people are randy and violent. Shakespeare doesn’t portray them as moral heroes…

When you listen to Shakespeare do you hear ‘only’ the occasional ‘vulgarism’ or do you hear Henry V’s speech to the troops about St. Crispin’s day? Do you hear Juliet’s plaint about a rose by any other name? Do you hear Othello’s descent into madness? Or Lear’s? Macbeth’s journey from loyalty to treason. . . or Henry V’s ‘ascent’ from playboy prince to hero? Do you hear Shylock’s poignant cry that "do not Jews bleed?’ or Portia’s “the quality of mercy is not strained. . .”? Do you hear Beatrice and Benedict falling in love in spite of their ‘merry war’ on each other? How about Hermione’s sufferings and ‘resurrection’ after her husband’s tragic mistakes?

Well said!

Shakespeare, Chaucer, Boccaccio, Dante, etc lived in time periods who were much less prudish than later eras. Remember that in those times there was very little notion of privacy. Some families ended up sleeping together in one room. This is true for much of human history. Add to that the fact that many of these people lived in closer proximity to animals. They saw nature up close. This also added to the bawdiness and earthiness of these writings. Sure, there are sexual jokes in it. During the Middle Ages, the sacred and the profane (ie. common stuff) went hand and hand. On the one hand, they were more pious in the sense that they were more aware of the supernatural. On the other, they were also more aware that life is fleeting. They had strong senses of humor and whimsy . . . this kind of bawdy humor has been around for thousands of years and the Bible is not immune from it either. There are many such references in the OT.

Excellent point! Especially your explanation of how they were so much more attuned to both the profane/earthy and the sacred/supernatural.