Friends/Scholars: What Do You Make Of Shakespeare?

  • Thread starter Thread starter sparkle
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

sparkle

Guest
Heard on “The World Over Live” this a.m.on EWTN, the intriguing author Claire Ipswith discuss her book with Raymond Arroyo “Shadowplay” about Shakespeare’s plays and their hidden messages. Has anyone read the book yet? I’m most anxious to read it. Thoughts about such? Any other Shakespeare enthusiasts out there?
 
Hi there: Well here we go again, another writer with too much time on her hands. Not you, the author. I thorughly enjoy his works, even given the fact he couldn’t keep the spelling of his name straight. All his fans have been down this tired road. The book claiming Francis Bacon wrote them was the longest lasting that I recall. Even given the fact that the premise was rather assinine. Only Bacon had the education and background to produce such masterpieces. I read some of Bacons works, he had the humor of a wet cat. That’s what shot that author in the foot. When we recalled the the silly good humor in “Mid Summer Nights Dream.” and “The Taming of the Shrew.” In later years, as you know, renamed "Kiss Me Kate as a musical. Before you spend your money remember the words of Puck, that mischievous sprite in aforesaid "Mid Summer Nights Dream. “Oh what fools these mortals be”. Anyhow that’ my two cents for what it’s worth Dan
 
I am currently reading Shakespeare and I think it, if anything, invokes one to think about each action and everything one says with careful thought. Every sentence in Shakespeare has some meaning, and I think that is what is great about the literature.

Hamlet’s silioquy is particularly interesting to me. I think it is a good thinking puzzle for an afterlife. Why are we so against suicide unless we have an inkling that it is not “total annihilation”? Eh, It was interesting to me, at least 🙂
 
The problem with this world is that too many people read about Shakespeare and not enough read Sharkespeare himself

Verbum
 
it seems we have more than one thread on this topic. Interesting theory, but proponents will have to explain the favor and patronage Shakespeare enjoyed from two Protestant monarchs, QEI and King James I
 
Well, I began the book “Shadowplay” by Claire I. ----- yesterday—and I think it marvelous, and most likely very accurate indeed. This really thrills me to no end. As I grew up in England, I really have a heart for the “Catholic England” and all they must have been going through back in the 1500’s.

I highly recommend this book to those Shakespeare enthusiasts out there.

Sparkle
 
For those with Dish Network, Clarie is on The World Over at this very moment! 12 Noon CST
 
I left a small quote at Jimmy Akin’s blog when they brought up this book. I finished reading it the other day and I have to say it is quite good.

But (like I said before) conspiracy theories are extremely problematic. They are spawned not by evidence, but by the lack thereof. Shakespeare is a man of many enigmas and his background has always invited all sorts of speculation. It seems that every generation has something to say about the man (or woman) behind the pen. Another problem with conspiracy theories is that people who believe in them have a very convenient catch-all: they can discount any evidence to the contrary as being just part of the coverup.

We as Catholics know what it is like to be the subject of the most bizarre obfuscations. How does one prove that ours in not the secret church of Satan? Anyone who has been frustrated by long hours trying to persuade a friend, family member or colleague why Dan Brown is full of it understands what I mean. It is really hard to prove a negative. It is very easy to construct a vast and exciting tapestry based on what we do not know. I mean think about it, Dan Brown is about as bright as a bag of hammers – if he can do it, pretty much anyone can.

On the other hand, though, the mystery of Shakespeare the man remains unsolved. It would be very much against human nature to dogmatically ignore the holes in our understanding. Personally, I have ALWAYS suspected.

The story of Hamlet was one of the major moments in my life where I began to question the idea Sola Fide. The play makes it clear that when you say (or think, or believe) you are going to do something but always find an excuse to back out, you contradict yourself. You become a sort of living lie, impotent and meaningless. Sola Fide, that absurd idea that breaks the necessary link between body and soul, thereby turning Aquinas on his head, is not only unbiblical, but completely untrue in a universal sense that everyone can understand once the politics of the issue of “my god vs your god” are put aside.

Also, this book differs from most conspiracies in that the material in question is well-known and studied, as well as readily available (probably second to the Bible in popularity among English speakers). This is not obscure “secret knowledge,” hidden documents, rare camera footage, or out of print media. This is Shakespeare and I think Asquith gets a big fat thumbs up for having the kintama to put out the idea, and then say “Okay, scour the works for yourself.”

The book is sparse in this sense – not that it does not offer evidence. I suggest reading it yourself, though, before passing judgment. Anyone who reads the Gospel of Thomas can immediately understand why it is not in the Bible.

Shakespeare has always loomed large on my Papa-dar.
 
40.png
puzzleannie:
it seems we have more than one thread on this topic. Interesting theory, but proponents will have to explain the favor and patronage Shakespeare enjoyed from two Protestant monarchs, QEI and King James I
Click to expand...
Because the plays really were authored by Edward De Vere Earl of Oxford???
 
Reading Shakespeare in highschool, I always had an impression that he was morally catholic. The Anglican church may have been more catholic in culture and morality then. So, dificult to tell.

But the author does bring up some Bellocian ideas that things are not as clean as history books tell us. As we can see with our current events, it is always messy. When a Spanish Armada arrives, it arrives with greedy conquistadors and well meaning monks. They come from the same boat with different motives. So to make a sweeping generalization that Europe used Christianity to lure natives to give up wealth is true only for the swindling pirates but not of all.

My point is that the author proposes that Englad did have a hard time becoming Anglican, that the general populace was divided if not more sympathetic to the ancient church. That it was a mess as far as sterilizing the country of Catholicism sound to me more of how the drama of human nature occurs rather than an overnight reboot of culture.

And Shakespeare may have been in the middle of all this being a Hamlet in which side to go with. IMO the speculation is historically interesting. And I wouldn’t be surprised is the Bard is Catholic.

in XT.
 
Interestingly enough I was thinking this as I saw Macbeth two nights ago. I saw so many allusions to the sin in the garden, and thought it was in a large part the retelling of the story of King Saul, what with the witches and all, and his prophesized loss of the throne to a family friend. Banquo’s almost prophetic utterance in response to the witches shows a very Catholic view of evil.
40.png
Macbeth:
BANQUO: Aside to Macbeth.] That, trusted home,

Might yet enkindle you unto the crown,

Besides the Thane of Cawdor. But 'tis strange;

And oftentimes, to win us to our harm,

The instruments of darkness tell us truths,

Win us with honest trifles, to betray’s

In deepest consequence-

Cousins, a word, I pray you.
Click to expand...
However at the time I do not know how similar Anglicanism and Catholicism were, because what he utters is common sense.

I also wondered with Caesar and Romeo and Juliet, (which I barely recall although I had to memorize passages from them in High School) why he would set so many major plays in Italy.

And oh, did I love Hamlet.
 
Regarding Anglicanism, the book talks about the struggle to create a “compromise” religion that was despised by both Catholics and Puritans (who persecuted each other).

Though not overtly stated in the book, you get the idea that Anglicanism is a sort propaganda tool created by the state in order to nurture a type of religious devotion that was subservient to the government’s goal of controlling social order. To this day, the British government plays a controlling role in this church.

I find it really telling that she mentions the experience of watching a “pro-state” play in Communist Russia full of anti-state nudges and winks as being the catalyst for reading deeper meaning into Shakespeare.

From this portrayal of history, it is clear that England was run Soviet-style with its secret police, night raids, land seizures, unlawful imprisonments and brutal public executions. Not to mention the rigid restrictions on speech, learning and religion.

I noticed a parallel here between Anglicanism and the state-run “churches” in present day China. The Communist “Three-Self Movement Catholic Church” is basically the same thing as the Anglican was then: unpoped, above-ground, and a safe alternative to waking up with someone’s boot heel on your temple. Who knows? In time perhaps as the more fascist elements of China’s government will melt in the springtime of blossoming human rights and democracy, this Red Anglicanism may earn a place among legitimate religions in the world and, like Anglicanism, send missionaries all over the world --even the US.

The point is, Henry VIII did not break from the Rome and POOF! ay yi yi! we are ANGLICAN! No, this took time and thought and much political manipulation to find just the right tool to make willing tools out of England’s subjects. It makes sense when you realize that King Jame’s wife was a Catholic convert and his mother a Catholic martyr but he himself was trying to create a Protestant state. Anglicanism is the unimaginative (oppressive regimes always lack imagination) compromise between staid Puritanism and vivacious native Catholicism.

Naturally an excursion into history’s political roots for Protestantism’s various origins is not something they like to study because it reveals how historically, theologically, philosophically (but not politically) baseless their “hydra-like” faiths are. (Where do you think the present-day relativist disdain for history as just being “the winner’s story” came from in the first place?)

PS, Forgive the Kid Video reference…
 
I haven’t read this book, but a couple of years ago the BBC did a series on the life of Shakespeare called “In search of Shakespeare” by Michael Wood who is a serious historian. It seems very likely that he was a catholic, even to the end. Certainly his father, John Shakespeare was, and his first job as a tutor was to a catholic family in Lancashire.

Michael Wood unearthed some very interesting material. Unfortunately I would have to watch the series again (I bought the videos) to give any details. As some said above, Elizabethan England was a police state, which has the advantage to us that there is lot of archive material files away still (spies reports etc.).

If you are interested in knowing more about Shakespeare’s life (or as much as can be know/surmised) I recommend this series. Don’t know if you can get it in USA though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top