Was Shakespeare Catholic or Anglican? Does it matter?

[Jerusha]

Mary wasn’t Catholic. She was crazy.

 

[Kelt]

Joseph Pearce’s book The Quest for Shakespeare addresses this question. After reading it, I firmly believe Shakespeare was Catholic, and there are a lot of clues in his writings.
It was a time when, as mentioned above, Catholics were persecuted, sometimes violently. He may have witnessed people being hanged, drawn and quartered for their beliefs.

From the notes:
"Pearce’s quest leads to the inescapable conclusion that Shakespeare was a believing Catholic living in very anti-Catholic times.

Many of his friends and family were persecuted, and even executed, for their Catholic faith. And yet he seems to have avoided any notable persecution himself. How did he do this? How did he respond to the persecution of his friends and family? What did he say about the dreadful and intolerant times in which he found himself? The Quest for Shakespeare answers these questions in ways that will enlighten and astonish those who love Shakespeare’s work, and that will shock and outrage many of his critics. "

I’ve had a quick look at the book. It seems to be saying that we should re-read his works as by a Catholic Shakespeare - as opposed to ?? And that it will change our reading of the plays? Did it make you see his plays differently? I ask because I have so many books to read, it’ll maybe take me a time to get to read it! I’d like to know how it changes our view of the plays.

 

[Jerusha]

How many were set in Catholic countries? How were the characters portrayed?

 

[Kelt]

Mary wasn’t Catholic. She was crazy.

Poor Mary - have you read about her life? Not many people would retain ALL their marbles having such a life. Maybe she clung so fervently to her faith for comfort and affirmation, but then that made her a fanatic.

 

[Kelt]

How many were set in Catholic countries? How were the characters portrayed?

Many were set in Italy (which is why I have a sneaky suspicion that he went there, but it’s not generally thought he did). But he did make friends with an Italian family of actor/ entertainers who came to London. He mixed with people who’d travelled.
You’ll have to go to the theatre!!

 

[Jerusha]

Poor Mary - have you read about her life? Not many people would retain ALL their marbles having such a life. Maybe she clung so fervently to her faith for comfort and affirmation, but then that made her a fanatic.

It was all about legitimacy claims. If one was illegitimate, the other was legitimate. Because Mary’s legitimacy was founded on the legitimacy of Rome’s power, then she had to be Catholic in order to be Queen. Not much of a foundation for true faith.

At least that is what I have gotten from reading about it.

Sorry, I have roots in Bristol-- that is where I would go first.

 

[Indigo_Cardinal]

Poor Mary - have you read about her life? Not many people would retain ALL their marbles having such a life. Maybe she clung so fervently to her faith for comfort and affirmation, but then that made her a fanatic.

To a certain extent, I believe that’s very likely. Don’t forget, England was swinging towards Protestantism under her brother Edward, who subverted their father’s will (stating that Mary than Elizabeth would ascend to the throne in the event Edward died childless) by naming Lady Jane Grey (a Protestant) as his heir. Jane was actually crowned (apparently unwillingly, she believed Mary to be the rightful heir), but Mary gained enough support that Jane was ‘overthrown’ and Mary crowned Queen…which, naturally, caused Mary to believe that God favored her cause and rewarded her for her faithfulness.

Though interestingly, Mary would have likely pardoned Jane (they were cousins, and Mary did feel Jane got strongarmed into doing something against her conscience) if an insurrection hadn’t been raised in Jane’s name, causing the Spanish to drag their feet at the thought of sending their prince to England to marry Mary. So Jane loses her head, and Mary marries Phillip…and doesn’t live so happily ever after. She desperately wanted–and needed–children, but was already at the end of childbearing years, and it’s believed her desperation led to two false pregnancies. Couldn’t have helped her mental state at all.

As for Shakespeare…I doubt anybody will ever know for certain. Harry Turtledove (a fantasy writer who does a lot of alternate history stories and has a strong background in history) wrote “Ruled Brittania”, which focuses on an England where the Armada successfully conquered England, and Shakespeare’s role in that society. Shakespeare does attend Catholic Mass, as required, and is thinking to himself in one scene that as a poet, he does love the pageantry of Mass, but he resented having it forced on him by a foreign power. It doesn’t prove anything, but I thought it was in interesting possible viewpoint.

Personally, I think Shakespeare just did what a lot of writers do…“Write what you know.” He would’ve been most familiar with Catholicism, and don’t forget, he wrote a number of historical plays where the characters would have been Catholics anyway. It may have just simply been easier, so far as he was concerned.

 

[Kelt]

It was all about legitimacy claims. If one was illegitimate, the other was legitimate. Because Mary’s legitimacy was founded on the legitimacy of Rome’s power, then she had to be Catholic in order to be Queen. Not much of a foundation for true faith.

At least that is what I have gotten from reading about it.

Sorry, I have roots in Bristol-- that is where I would go first.

Ooh, I don’t think there’s much evidence of Mary not being devoutly Catholic. She would have been brought up strictly Catholic by her Spanish mother. She must have keenly felt the injustice done to her mother - I think she would have kept to their shared faith. It’s interesting though, that Henry kept her as a legitimate heir. I suppose he had his son by then, and pinned his hopes on him, although I wonder why he didn’t disinherit Mary - perhaps he had a teeny bit of conscience left!
Mary could have changed to Protestant - her younger brother, when king, repeatedly asked her to renounce her Catholicism and it would have made her life easier. It would have made her accession to the throne easier too. I think she was devout…maybe a little too devout…
I hope you’re not apologising for having roots in Bristol - a fine city!

 

[Barzillai]

Two great books that open Shakespeare’s genius are by Claire Asquith and Joseph Pearce. It is important to know what Shakespeare was writing about. Asquith and Pearce permit a fuller understanding of how Shakespeare saw his times. If you read just one book, I think Asquith would be the one.

Shadowplay: The Hidden Beliefs and Coded Politics of William Shakespeare – by Claire Asquith – 2005

The Quest for Shakespeare – by Joseph Pearce – 2008

Do I think the greatest writer in the English language was Catholic? I don’t know. But I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Shakespeare wrote from a Catholic aspect and aided the Catholic underground.

His acquisition of Blackfriars Gatehouse was telling:

"…*n March of 1613, not long before his death, William Shakespeare purchased the labyrinthian London tenement known as the Blackfriars Gatehouse, notorious for decades as a secret hideaway for crypto-Catholics. Among Shakespeare scholars, Ian Wilson deserves the most credit for highlighting the controversial Catholic connections associated with this building. It was Wilson who criticized Rowse and Schoenbaum for disingenuously arguing that this purchase was merely an investment property. In Wilson’s words:

Now in all this the major source of interest is why, with all London to choose from, Shakespeare should have selected, as a purportedly casual investment, this notoriously Catholic Gatehouse, with all its secret hiding places still retaining their secrets. It is not even as though he bought it as a bargain; he paid 140 pounds for it, more than twice the amount he had paid for New Place. So was it really just an “investment pure and simple”?

The bottom line is that the two most important real estate acquistions of Shakespeare’s life, New Place and the Blackfriars Gatehouse, were both properties long-known to have strong historical associations with Catholics. Source​

In the 20th century it is wise to follow the money, in 17th century England we might say follow the property.*

 

[Jerusha]

Ooh, I don’t think there’s much evidence of Mary not being devoutly Catholic… I think she was devout…maybe a little too devout…
I hope you’re not apologising for having roots in Bristol - a fine city!

I will have to read up on her. No apologies about Bristol-- my grandfather was rather militant about the privileges and prosperity theology of the upper classes-- Anglicans included. From what I read, people from that area reject British stuffiness. His favorite to me was “keep a stiff upper lip.” There were many trips between continents with his family, even back to Revolutionary days.

 

[Indigo_Cardinal]

Ooh, I don’t think there’s much evidence of Mary not being devoutly Catholic. She would have been brought up strictly Catholic by her Spanish mother. She must have keenly felt the injustice done to her mother - I think she would have kept to their shared faith. It’s interesting though, that Henry kept her as a legitimate heir. I suppose he had his son by then, and pinned his hopes on him, although I wonder why he didn’t disinherit Mary - perhaps he had a teeny bit of conscience left!

Actually Mary was stricken from the succession for awhile–it was through the intervention of a later stepmother (I want to say Jane Seymour, but I’d have to double-check that) that she was restored to favor. After Anne Boleyn’s downfall, Elizabeth was out of the succession as well–I believe Katherine Parr (Henry VIII’s last wife) managed to influence Henry on her behalf.

 

[Kelt]

Kelt;12528968:

Ooh, I don’t think there’s much evidence of Mary not being devoutly Catholic. She would have been brought up strictly Catholic by her Spanish mother. She must have keenly felt the injustice done to her mother - I think she would have kept to their shared faith. It’s interesting though, that Henry kept her as a legitimate heir. I suppose he had his son by then, and pinned his hopes on him, although I wonder why he didn’t disinherit Mary - perhaps he had a teeny bit of conscience left!

Actually Mary was stricken from the succession for awhile–it was through the intervention of a later stepmother (I want to say Jane Seymour, but I’d have to double-check that) that she was restored to favor. After Anne Boleyn’s downfall, Elizabeth was out of the succession as well–I believe Katherine Parr (Henry VIII’s last wife) managed to influence Henry on her behalf.

Yup, I think you’re right. And no, Henry wouldn’t have had any conscience left at all by then!

 

[Kelt]

I will have to read up on her. No apologies about Bristol-- my grandfather was rather militant about the privileges and prosperity theology of the upper classes-- Anglicans included. From what I read, people from that area reject British stuffiness. His favorite to me was “keep a stiff upper lip.” There were many trips between continents with his family, even back to Revolutionary days.

ALWAYS keep a stiff upper lip!!