Stratford-Upon-Tiber
Now, while I usually find questions of "Are they or aren't they Catholic?" obtuse, insular and in poor taste, a case has come up that, well, makes me emphasize that the question is obtuse, insular and in poor taste.
From The Independent:
Then there's the other side of me that says "OK, so now he can be excommunicated and bashed by "real" Catholics as a "bad Catholic" for all the evil in the canon of his work..."
My goodness.
-30-
From The Independent:
Clare Asquith - or Viscountess Asquith, to give her the proper title - has done something that has dropped an almighty stone into the tranquil waters of academia and created ripples that will spread far and wide. She's been labelled a "conspiracy theorist" by Polly Toynbee in The Guardian and accused of "floating above the facts" by Professor Stanley Wells on the Today programme. For Asquith has written a book which, play by play, sets out to prove that Shakespeare was a papist.First off, Why?! And why now, 470 years after the Bard's death?
Then there's the other side of me that says "OK, so now he can be excommunicated and bashed by "real" Catholics as a "bad Catholic" for all the evil in the canon of his work..."
My goodness.
-30-
posted by Rocco Palmo at 09:05
3 Comments:
Assuming your question was not rhetorical, the short answer is "money". The long answer has something to do with the fact that next to the Church, Shakespeare is probably the most popular subject of historical expose and conjecture (Shakespeare In Love [movie], The Shakespeare Mystery on PBS [tv], Shakespeare by Another Name [book]). It was only a matter of time before somebody put the two together, Church and Shakespeare, in order to make a little dough.
I myself am working on a book that puts forth the hypothesis that Shakespeare was a soothsayer and that his works mirror The Book of Revelation and foretell the coming Apocalypse. Right now I'm working on the "Tempest is Katrina Spelled Backwards" chapter. Yeah, it still needs a little work but just think, when it comes out I'll finally be able to throw some coins into the guitar case!
lots of comments on a book that folks,
seemingly, have not even skimmed through.
thomas
Rocco asks 'Why?! And why now, 470 years after the Bard's death?', but the article quotes what look to me to be some reasons of Asquith's:
"But it still makes me angry that a great injustice has been done. Shakespeare definitely thought that his coded message would be picked up, and thanks to years of bias, particularly under the Victorians but still present in some places, it never was.
["]I think a proper understanding of the resistance of that time is terribly important both to understanding who Shakespeare really was - and to who we are, as a nation."
"Once I understood that the plays describe contemporary events that Shakespeare was living through, I actually learnt a lot of history from them - and a lot about Shakespeare's own life."
These quoted reasons show that her question 'was Shakespeare a Catholic?' is not obtuse (lacking quickness of perception or intellect or characterized by a lack of intelligence or sensitivity). Neither is it isolated, detached, or inward-looking (insular). As to 'in poor taste', I prefer Rocco elaborates.
Post a Comment
<< Home