Well, I'd happily make my (imaginary) GCSE class read that. Pithy stuff. Be interested to read any appreciations you may have written of particular plays
Thank you - I’ve not yet written detailed critiques of other plays on here. I intended previously to write something on Coriolanus and Julius Caesar, and might try something along those lines soon.
Separately, I’ve written in-depth analyses of The Lord of the Rings and Chesterton’s The Man Who Was Thursday, back when I had a tiny audience.
How on earth did you come to this conclusion: " Almost certainly a devout Christian, and quite possibly a secret Catholic during the repressive Elizabethan era,"
I see Shakespeare in a totally different light: he was an actor and writer, his characters are all fictional, and they encompass the reality of his own age: how on earth can anyone suggest that he had a personal belief system? I've been an actor and a director - of Shakespeare and others - and as an actor one does not have a belief system: one occupies others like a mirror. You simply cannot afford to take or hold a religious line: your job is to tell stories - and get bums on seats - and that's it. Two of his most famous characters were Shylock and Othello: and they both evoke pity and empathy, despite their deep personal flaws. One of his finest fictional creations was Prospero - a magician. There are also many non-Christian and occult characters in Midsummer Nights Dream - in what way could they be part of a Christian belief system - ?
Thanks - that’s interesting. Most scholars agree that Shakespeare was certainly Christian: he was a conforming member of the Church of England, and his works contain many Christian references and allusions. I know that Orwell, for example, thought he was possibly agnostic or an atheist. I personally don’t think that’s credible, and the majority of experts don’t either. There’s no evidence that he did not hold religious beliefs. Moreover, he was reared in a deeply Christian home, his schooling was Christian, and his associations were Christian throughout his life.
The difficult question is whether he was a Protestant or a recusant Catholic. That’s a really difficult question to answer, and it vexes the experts. I’m not pretending to know the answer, and nor am I declaring that I know he was not a secret atheist. But it’s worth looking into the Protestant-Catholic debate between the scholars. It’s a much deeper subject that I had space for here, but I might explore it further some time. Personally, I think it’s very credible that he was a secret Catholic and I’d encourage people to look into the evidence themselves and form their own judgements.
One could not afford to be anything other than a conformist to the Establishment Religion in those days: at least in name: the alternative was to be subjected to burning or (if very noble) beheading. Wise people like him kept silent and nodded to the regime.
There is zero Christianity in this , and a lot of mystical thinking and even Zen:
I do in fact see religious sentiments in that verse: “doth suffer a sea-change // Into something rich and strange.”
As I say in the essay of other lines in his plays, this isn’t the abyss of death envisaged by the atheist: it’s life transforming into something else upon death. It’s similar to the notions of sleep and dreaming that Shakespeare repeatedly associates with death. He was no nihilist, although I know others interpret him as such. He was fascinated by the mystery of death and the next life.
Shakespeare refers four times in his works to 1 Corinthians 2:9: “Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.”
This is one of a great many examples of biblical influence on his works. We also know that he makes references to parts of the Book of Revelation that were definitely not taught in the (compulsory) church services he attended. So this was a man closely studying the Bible in his own time. That doesn’t prove belief, sure. But it does prove deep interest.
It’s important to also recognise that, in the Elizabethan era, public performances did not deal directly with religion due to the tensions in broader society. So we shouldn’t expect his works to have been loudly theological in nature, no matter his views.
The Protestants, the Catholics and the atheists all want him “on their side”, as it were — which says everything about his greatness. But I personally do not think there is any evidence, either in his life or in the works, that show he was not religious. And the dispute from hundreds of years of close scholarship has tended to regard the Catholic-Protestant distinction as the real mystery.
Which is why we still read him! He wrote the truth of it.
Well, I'd happily make my (imaginary) GCSE class read that. Pithy stuff. Be interested to read any appreciations you may have written of particular plays
Thank you - I’ve not yet written detailed critiques of other plays on here. I intended previously to write something on Coriolanus and Julius Caesar, and might try something along those lines soon.
Separately, I’ve written in-depth analyses of The Lord of the Rings and Chesterton’s The Man Who Was Thursday, back when I had a tiny audience.
How on earth did you come to this conclusion: " Almost certainly a devout Christian, and quite possibly a secret Catholic during the repressive Elizabethan era,"
I see Shakespeare in a totally different light: he was an actor and writer, his characters are all fictional, and they encompass the reality of his own age: how on earth can anyone suggest that he had a personal belief system? I've been an actor and a director - of Shakespeare and others - and as an actor one does not have a belief system: one occupies others like a mirror. You simply cannot afford to take or hold a religious line: your job is to tell stories - and get bums on seats - and that's it. Two of his most famous characters were Shylock and Othello: and they both evoke pity and empathy, despite their deep personal flaws. One of his finest fictional creations was Prospero - a magician. There are also many non-Christian and occult characters in Midsummer Nights Dream - in what way could they be part of a Christian belief system - ?
I think more study is needed.
Thanks - that’s interesting. Most scholars agree that Shakespeare was certainly Christian: he was a conforming member of the Church of England, and his works contain many Christian references and allusions. I know that Orwell, for example, thought he was possibly agnostic or an atheist. I personally don’t think that’s credible, and the majority of experts don’t either. There’s no evidence that he did not hold religious beliefs. Moreover, he was reared in a deeply Christian home, his schooling was Christian, and his associations were Christian throughout his life.
The difficult question is whether he was a Protestant or a recusant Catholic. That’s a really difficult question to answer, and it vexes the experts. I’m not pretending to know the answer, and nor am I declaring that I know he was not a secret atheist. But it’s worth looking into the Protestant-Catholic debate between the scholars. It’s a much deeper subject that I had space for here, but I might explore it further some time. Personally, I think it’s very credible that he was a secret Catholic and I’d encourage people to look into the evidence themselves and form their own judgements.
Thanks again for your comment!
One could not afford to be anything other than a conformist to the Establishment Religion in those days: at least in name: the alternative was to be subjected to burning or (if very noble) beheading. Wise people like him kept silent and nodded to the regime.
There is zero Christianity in this , and a lot of mystical thinking and even Zen:
By William Shakespeare
(from The Tempest)
"Full fathom five thy father lies;
Of his bones are coral made;
Those are pearls that were his eyes:
Nothing of him that doth fade,
But doth suffer a sea-change
Into something rich and strange.
Sea-nymphs hourly ring his knell:
Ding-dong.
Hark! now I hear them,—ding-dong, bell."
I do in fact see religious sentiments in that verse: “doth suffer a sea-change // Into something rich and strange.”
As I say in the essay of other lines in his plays, this isn’t the abyss of death envisaged by the atheist: it’s life transforming into something else upon death. It’s similar to the notions of sleep and dreaming that Shakespeare repeatedly associates with death. He was no nihilist, although I know others interpret him as such. He was fascinated by the mystery of death and the next life.
Shakespeare refers four times in his works to 1 Corinthians 2:9: “Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.”
This is one of a great many examples of biblical influence on his works. We also know that he makes references to parts of the Book of Revelation that were definitely not taught in the (compulsory) church services he attended. So this was a man closely studying the Bible in his own time. That doesn’t prove belief, sure. But it does prove deep interest.
It’s important to also recognise that, in the Elizabethan era, public performances did not deal directly with religion due to the tensions in broader society. So we shouldn’t expect his works to have been loudly theological in nature, no matter his views.
The Protestants, the Catholics and the atheists all want him “on their side”, as it were — which says everything about his greatness. But I personally do not think there is any evidence, either in his life or in the works, that show he was not religious. And the dispute from hundreds of years of close scholarship has tended to regard the Catholic-Protestant distinction as the real mystery.
The Seven Ages of Man
Speech from William Shakespeare’s As You Like It, Act II scene vii
I see no belief at all: I see a master at work
Jaques: All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players:
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts,
His acts being seven ages. At first the infant,
Mewling and puking in the nurse's arms.
And then the whining school-boy, with his satchel
And shining morning face, creeping like snail
Unwillingly to school. And then the lover,
Sighing like furnace, with a woeful ballad
Made to his mistress' eyebrow. Then a soldier,
Full of strange oaths and bearded like the pard,
Jealous in honour, sudden and quick in quarrel,
Seeking the bubble reputation
Even in the cannon's mouth. And then the justice,
In fair round belly with good capon lined,
With eyes severe and beard of formal cut,
Full of wise saws and modern instances;
And so he plays his part. The sixth age shifts
Into the lean and slipper'd pantaloon,
With spectacles on nose and pouch on side,
His youthful hose, well saved, a world too wide
For his shrunk shank; and his big manly voice,
Turning again toward childish treble, pipes
And whistles in his sound. Last scene of all,
That ends this strange eventful history,
Is second childishness and mere oblivion,
Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything.
----
No life ever after, no redemption, merely oblivion.