Recusants - Joseph Pearce
Vložit
- čas přidán 24. 01. 2017
- In this lecture for the 2006 Deep in History conference, literary biographer Joseph Pearce looks at the English Reformation, and specifically recusants- those English under the rule of Anglican monarchs who retained their Catholic faith. Pearce explores the legal burdens placed on these people, and how they strove, often covertly, to preserve Catholic practice and traditions under persecution. Pearce also looks at the Shakespeare family, and makes the case that they were among those recusant Catholics who stayed loyal to Rome under Anglican rule.
I'm convinced Shakespeare was a Catholic. This would also help explain why he seems so remote compared to other major figures of that time. He kept to himself out of necessity because of his religious beliefs.
Very interesting thank you
For those of us who have to earn our Cambridge O and A Levels, and did English Literature, we might have studied Lear, Coriolanus etc. In class, the lecturers never put a religious lens on how we read the works. But as a Catholic who was already keenly aware of my faith, I found these works and many of his sonnets reflecting clear 'Romish" or better said 'Catholic' ethos. And when I did speak to my English tutor Mr Jones about it, he simply said, 'Well, possibly (the influences of) the social upbringing." I can only say that if you did not identify those elements and idioms as being subtly 'Romish' and simply as 'Anglican Christian', almost everyone would agree with you. Yet, as Pearce suggests, if you're recusant , you would never overtly advertise your religious sentiments and place yourself under clear suspicion, which Shakespeare would have been simply too shrewd to have done. So any hard evidence would be scant, and the absence of evidence of his Anglicanism would be consistent with that.
Wat 'n kwaai lesing! Baaie Dankie
I don't know if Shakespeare was Catholic or not I know I had an English Professor that believed he was. I would like to think that he was, although I find Shakespeare kind of hard to read. I mean even if he weren't Catholic and he was Protestant I do think he at least had Catholic sympathies. I can tell you that Shakespeare probably was not a woman though, that much I know.
Oi. Rileys Bar on the Kings Road, Chelsea closed its doors for the last time a week before Christmas. Sad, innit?
I say we look to Canonize the Bard.
Question for Prof Pearce, re: "ES had little latin and less greek."
How do we reconcile this with the fact that several of the plays demonstrate a knowledge of the latin authors, particularly the mythologies of Ovid (e.g. Midsummer) or Suetonius (e.g. Julius Caesar)?
Then, there's the Italian source material for Romeo and Juliet, etc. Someone familiar with these non-english sources seems decently well educated to me.
William Shakspur was a real person, and his family was Catholic; however, Francis Bacon wrote the plays attributed to William Shakespeare. Not too many academics actually look at the evidence. They merely dismiss "conspiracy theories" as such in order to preserve their academic positions. They base their arguments on so-called "common sense," when the irony is that the evidence for William Shakspur being William Shakespeare is just as specious as that for Bacon.
I'm so over the English obsession with how oppressed Catholics are (I'm English from the North West and from that community).
Get over it already. The real challenge for English Catholics is, "Why should we remain Catholic?"
Obsessing over the martyrs makes no sense, because the English martyrs maintained the Old Mass, which has now basically gone.
Easy for you to say. You obviously have no empathy with suffering. Do us a favour and stop whining about what others are interested in and if you don't like it. ...Don't watch it . Simple isn't it ?
@Michael Kenny A bit insensitive don’t you think?