Customer Reviews

The Quest for Shakespeare

5 star:		(13)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

Joseph Pearce proves Shakespeare's Catholicism with such a resounding slam dunk that it seems pointless to prolong any argument on the issue. Shakespeare was Catholic. Deal with it. It's time now to proceed to a serious discussion of the implications of this fact. And there are plenty of implications.

I believe this book is going to have ramifications beyond even what the author might expect. By that, I mean the way it may affect one on a personal level. For anyone (such as myself) who was born into Protestantism and who has English ancestry, it's very sobering to be reminded by the historical facts presented in this book that not only were all of our English ancestors Catholic, but that, in all likelihood, our families became Protestants due to the considerable pressure of the state, and not by choice. It is also a bit painful when reading the biographical sketches of the various personalities whose lives touched Shakespeare, each of whom responded to the Elizabethan reign of terror in different ways, to consider how each of us may be remembered by future generations.

Joseph Pearce has written the most delightful book on Shakespeare I've ever come across. First, because the man is truly a gifted writer and has a sense of humor. Second, because he quickly demolishes the many silly myths and weird theories around Shakespeare's life. He pokes gentle fun at the folks who think Elizabeth I wrote the plays, or Daniel Dafoe, or the Earl of Oxford. Next he puts those who want to use Shakespeare to make their own point about sex and religion in their ignoble places. Then he swiftly goes on to the gist of the book. Did Shakespeare in some form or fashion hang on to his Catholic faith in spite of the terrible persecution of the times?

By looking at the evidence Pearce says yes, probably. His father was a discrete but resolute Catholic, his daughter Susanna was also a recussant. He was married by an ordained priest and lived in a town that was known for being a center of hard headed Catholicism. Like William Byrd he was probably excruciatingly careful--- he'd seen relatives and friends jailed and or killed for being Catholic afterall.

Quest for Shakespeare is quick, clever and charming. I'm so glad I bought it.

Joseph Pearce shows us convincingly the overwhelming evidence that Shakespeare was Catholic in a very objective manner, distinguishing always between facts that have proof to back them up and speculations that have only circumstantial evidence. This book is easy to read and imperative to understand Shakespeare and the times he lived in. Unfortunately, Pearce spends only one chapter (really an appendix) demonstrating how the knowledge of Shakespeare's Catholicity should affect our reading of his works, and the work he chooses is King Lear, not exactly one of the most famous of Shakespeare's plays. I wish he had chosen Hamlet or Macbeth. I hope that in the future, Pearce will do an in-depth study of more of Shakespeare's plays and sonnets.

Enjoyable and informative overview of the reasons for believing Shakespeare was a crypto-Catholic. The skewering of the PoMo and other literature faddists is delicious and I gleefully saved Pearce's comments using the clipping feature on the Kindle for future employment at just the right time. On the other hand, I also read Robert Miola's unflattering review in First Things magazine, which struck me as unnecessarily snarky. That leads me to be less willing (although not unwilling) to consider Miola's objections seriously. My advice to any who might be interested is to read the book first, then Miola's review, then Pearce's retort, and then finally Miola's rejoinder to Pearce's retort. Stressful for the authors, but enjoyable for the audience.

To the powers that be at Ignatius Press: More! Please, MORE titles for the Kindle!!!

I am very pleased to thank the Author for this book, that has got me to know the true Shakespeare. It's a wonderful book, very charming and convincing in its quest for the facts or the various degrees of plausible possibilities about the facts concerning the life and the character of the great Playwright. What I liked in particular was the clear and frank dismantling of the pretentious theories of so many scholars who pretend to dress the Poet with `their' personal mental habits...Again thanks, and I'm going to read these marvellous plays with a new and deeper awareness.

Joseph Pearce has written a fascinating analysis of William Shakespeare's relationship to the Catholic Church. After reading it, I am convinced Shakespeare was a devoted Catholic and I also admire his family and all those other people who kept the faith alive under such severe persecution. It was one of those books that I found hard to put down. I was only vaguely aware of the conflict between Protestants and Catholics in that time period. It is easy to see how such horrendous religious intolerance led directly to the United States' enshrining freedom of religion in our constitution in the 18th Century. It certainly makes me appreciate America all the more. I also have a greater respect for William Shakespeare as a man, and for all those courageous martyrs who died in service to Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church. I am looking forward to revisiting Shakespeare's plays with this new perspective in mind.

Like The Stripping of the Altars: Traditional Religion in England, 1400-1580, this book provides fascinating background on the anti-Catholic world in which Shakespeare lived - a background which seems erased from popular and supposedly educated memory: "England, by the end of the seventeenth century, had become culturally anti-Catholic to such a degree that memories of Shakespeares's Catholicism would not have been the topic of polite conversation" (p. 92). Seeing other Catholics of his era murdered by the state, Shakespeare "would remain obedient to his king, his country, his faith, and his conscience, saying, through the medium of his plays, with Sir Thomas More...that he was the king's good servant, but God's first" (p. 150). Pearce tells us that there is a tremendous lack of appreciation for Shakespeare's faith and its influence on his work: "It is only because we live in an age of uncommon nonsense that Shakespeare remains misunderstood and misconstrued by...academe"(p. 172).

Joseph Pearrce has written an excellent, well researched work that clearly establishes Shakespeare's deep links to the Catholic Underground in Elizabethan/Jacobite England. Some reviewers have quibbled, however, that Pearce's case cannot positively establish that Will Shakespeare remained a Catholic in belief. Perhaps, but that says more about the silencing power of Elizabeth's reign of terror than it does about Will Shakespeare.

For example, "Bostonian Reader" writes:
"as a matter truth, we must admit that the case is one of plausibility and probability, with an enormous number of unanswered -- and probably unanswerable -- questions. Even admitting that Shakespeare was raised a Catholic (almost certain) and was persistently interested in traditional religious images and theological questions, we have no way of knowing what he personally believed -- the plays do not contain an explicit statement of faith. "

Had a Shakespeare play contained an explicit statement of faith, the censor would have prohibited the performance and Will would have been rounded up by Walsingham's Gestapo, or at a minimum the pursuivants would have spied on him and nailed him (and everyone associated with him) for recusancy or more. Yet in the end, "Bostonian" is right in a sense. Elizabeth's effort to suppress the Catholic Religion was so vicious that the greatest writer in England's sorry history had to keep his mouth shut on his own beliefs.

What Pearce unquestionably has accomplished, though, is equally valuable. First, he has laid out the deep connections Will had to the faithful remnant of the Catholic Church that remained in England during his life. Second, Pearce has laid out the reality of Elizabeth's Reign of Terror in such excruciating detail that we can well understand why Shakespeare did what he did:
Why he left his property to the daughter who remained true to the Catholic Faith instead of to the one who had bent to the will of the all powerful English state.
Why he never bought a house in London during his days there (because if he had, his "Anglican pastor" would have reported him so he could be punished for non-attendance at the Queen's church).
Why he bought a house in London after he left London to retire in Stratford on Avon (because he wished to preserve the best Mass-House available in London for the secret offering of the Catholic Mass).
Why the greatest writer in Elizabethan England never shed a tear or wrote anything in Elizabeth's favor when she died. The English Monarchy has tried so hard to establish the "Glory" of her Reign (by promoting use of the "Gloriana" name for her etc.), yet its greatest writer essentially dissed her!!

In the end, Pearce's case is far more convincing than the quibbles of those who dispute it. We should not impose 21st Century American expectations on a person living in Elizabeth and James's 16-17th Century Police State. Shakespeare couldn't write about his beliefs explicitly because practice of the Catholic Religion in England was absolutely forbidden from the time Elizabeth took the Throne until 1829.

This book details, in great numbers, a myriad of facts regarding WS's life and the record is indeed extraordinary. Others have written about the relationship between his Catholocism and his plays but this book gives us many of the branches and limbs that helped form the totality of
his tree of life. The more I read about WS, his works and the difficult times he lived in, the more amazing his life and output become. I recommend this to any and all.

Joseph Pearce is a prominent biographer cum Catholic apologist, and of course he presents the case for Shakespeare as a Catholic. Is Pearce's presentation of this a "slam dunk", as another reviewer puts it? By no means. There has been a great deal of recent scholarship, some judicious and reliable and some wildly speculative, without admitting such.

Now, I am sympathetic to the Catholic case. But as a matter truth, we must admit that the case is one of plausibility and probability, with an enormous number of unanswered -- and probably unanswerable -- questions. Even admitting that Shakespeare was raised a Catholic (almost certain) and was persistently interested in traditional religious images and theological questions, we have no way of knowing what he personally believed -- the plays do not contain an explicit statement of faith. For judicious and critical but sympathetic reviews of the issues, I recommend two reviews from the journal, First Things:

http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=5374
http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=6202

If you want a biography that will inspire your Catholic faith and sensibilities, by all means read Pearce. And feel free to substitute five stars for my two. (Even at that I would allow only four stars because I find Pearce a rather superficial and tedious writer.)

If you want a fairer reading of the evidence, sympathetic without overstatement to the the Catholic case, start with the two articles mentioned or reading Michael Woods' outstanding book, "Shakespeare" (the DVD of the PBS series called "In Search of Shakespeare" is fabulous). Michael Woods' book has the further advantage of have a really good annotated bibliography--he even sites the opposition literature.