The “Shakespeare was a Catholic” theory gets a boost from an unlikely source: the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Dr Rowan Williams discussed the themes with Simon Russell Beale, the great Shakespearean actor, in one of the most eagerly-anticipated talks of the Hay Festival.
Little is known of Shakespeare’s life and there is no direct evidence of his religious affiliation, but Dr Williams said he believed him to be a Catholic. “I don’t think it tells us a great deal, to settle whether he was a Catholic or a Protestant, but for what it’s worth I think he probably had a Catholic background and a lot of Catholic friends and associates.
For what it’s worth, I think the Bard was probably a Methodist. But for a more historically informed analysis see Robert Minola’s article from the May 2008 edition of First Things, “Shakespeare’s Religion.”
(Via: TitusOneNine)
June 2nd, 2011 | 1:18 pm
Can we try to get Wodehouse, too?
June 2nd, 2011 | 2:42 pm
Hey, we got Wilde in the end, among many, many others…
June 2nd, 2011 | 3:12 pm
I’ll trade you Wodehouse and Wilde for Shakespeare and a writer to be named later.
June 2nd, 2011 | 3:27 pm
I’d like to make a deal for Willa Cather.
June 2nd, 2011 | 8:04 pm
What about the anti-papalist theme in Henry VIII, the antagonism to “St. Joan of Arc” in Henry VI, his pro-Queen Elizabeth themes, the Lutheran distinction between Law & Gospel in Merchant of Venice and Measure for Measure? We do know that Shakespeare was a lay rector at Holy Trinity Church in Stratford, where he was baptized, where he worshiped, and where he was buried. That makes him an Anglican. And Anglicans, especially, under Queen Elizabeth and King James, were and are Protestants.
Now it is true that some Anglicans were “recusants,” who yearned to go back to Rome and who hid and worshiped with counter-Reformation missionary priests sent by Rome in secret. Some in Shakespeare’s family seem to have been of that persuasion.
16th and 17th century Anglicanism was complicated. But we do know from documentary evidence that Shakespeare was an Anglican and we know from textual evidence that the theology he uses thematically–not to mention the Bible that he quotes from with great frequency (something not associated with Roman Catholics of that day)–is pretty recognizably Protestant when it is not “mere Christianity.”
June 3rd, 2011 | 6:46 am
The big surprise is that the Archbishop of Canterbury didn’t surrender Shakespeare to the Muslims….
June 3rd, 2011 | 8:44 am
Ah Gene, I was enjoying the games of Authors before you brought us back to reality.
June 3rd, 2011 | 11:56 am
Obviously it’s true that “he probably had a Catholic background and a lot of Catholic friends and associates.” It would be difficult to say who in England that would not be true of, since the whole country had been Catholic.
Cardinal Beaufort in the Henry 6 plays and Cardinal Wolsey in Henry 8 are both portrayed as scheming and corrupt. Even such sympathetic Catholic characters as Friar Laurence in R&J and Friar Francis in Much Ado practice and encourage deception on a grand scale.
The Archbishop is entitled to his opinion (ill-informed as it may be) and since he’s not Catholic, there’s no danger of him being considered infallible.
June 5th, 2011 | 12:31 am
Gene Veith seems to be quite confused. “Anglicans” were members of Henry VIII’s church and could not be recusants, who by definition refused to become “Anglican” and remained Catholic, even under persecution. We also know that the Bard’s mother was part of a strongly Catholic family and his father almost certainly was part of the Catholic resistance. In addition, William’s teachers in the local school were strongly Catholic and one became a priest. And Veith’s opinion that Shakespeare quasi-theological statements were clearly Protestant is debatable at best; nor is there any documentary evidence whatever that Shakespeare was an “anglican.” Many commentators besides Joseph Pierce think his works are cryto-Catholic.
As for Mr Sugarman, his comments about Friar Laurence (in Romeo and Juliet) are laughable. Most critics think this portrait highly complimentary to the character, one of the most engaging in all the plays. Mr. Sugarman’s concept of honesty seems to disqualify him for life in this sordid world.
June 8th, 2011 | 4:41 pm
In Henry V, King Henry a few hours before Agincourt reminds God that he paid out of his own pocket for a constant vigil for the soul of his late father. This I find a rather Catholic sentiment, which the Anglicans even in Shakespeare’s time would have found offensive.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact