Source:
Library
Published: 2008
Summary:
Pearce collects
historical evidence to argue that Shakespeare was not only raised in a recusant
Catholic household, but also remained a faithful Catholic throughout his life.
Review:
Pearce joins a not
insignificant list of authors and critics who have either felt or argued that
William Shakespeare was a practicing Catholic.
Seemingly gleaning what proved most helpful from many of them, he lays
out a case arguing that the playwright, now admitted by many to have at least
been raised in a recusant household, continued to embrace the “old faith” throughout
his life and died in it. Pearce admits
that the historical record will probably always remain too sparse for anyone to
prove that Shakespeare was Catholic (though he even uses the historical silence
in his defense—recusant Catholics would not have wanted to leave traces of
their illegal activities), but maintains that all the signs we have point
toward just this conclusion.
Pearce offers a lot of compelling
evidence for his argument—evidence best summed up in a lengthy quotation by Shakespeare
scholar Hugh Ross Willamson at the end of the book when he lists, almost in a
bulletpoint manner, all the things we definitely know about Shakespeare’s
associations with Catholicism and all the things we might know about
Shakespeare’s associations. Pearce’s
arguments are strongest when he sticks to those things we know. We know, for example, that Shakepeare’s
parents were recusant Catholics, that his daughter Susanna was listed as a recusant
Catholic, and so forth. Again, none of
this proves that Shakespeare himself embraced Catholicism, but it is
provocative.
Pearce steps onto more uncertain
ground when he begins to draw conclusions from some of the things we know. For instance, he provides long lists of people
who lived in Shakespeare’s town, who were Shakepeare’s relatives, or who were
associated with Shakespeare in London and were Catholic, because, apparently,
the more Catholics who live in your vicinity, the more likely you are to be
Catholic, too. He also sometimes waxes
eloquently on what might have happened if
Shakespeare had been present when Jesuit priest Edmund Campion arrived in England,
if Shakespeare had met Jesuit priest
Robert Southwell and been mentored by him,
if Shakespeare had seen Southwell hanged, and so forth. These assumptions typically rest on further
assumptions—that Shakespeare was in the neighborhood when Campion arrived, that
he really is that elusive William Shakeshafte who tutored in the countryside,
etc. Pearce repeatedly acknowledges that
much of this is speculation, but that does not stop him from engaging in it.
The other notable weakness in the book
is a marked antagonism toward many of the critics who promote philosophies with
which Pearce disagrees. Queer theorists,
deconstructionists, postmodernists, and more are all at the receiving end of
the author’s somewhat vitriolic wit.
Spirited debate is a staple of many academic works, but often the
attacks seem to tend toward the personal.
Pearce repeatedly asserts that such critics misunderstand Shakespeare
because they want to make him into their own image—an image he insinuates is
warped and ugly. While one understands
that Pearce desperately wants critics to understand Shakespeare in the context
of his own times and his own personality, it seems that the point could sometimes
have been made more charitably.
Notwithstanding some of the
speculations, The Quest for Shakespeare
remains a compelling and provocative read.
Its greatest strength perhaps lies in its refutations of all the arguments
against Shakespeare’s being Catholic—the main ones seemingly being that he must
have been atheist/agnostic or that a Catholic writer would have never received
royal favor. Furthermore, in collecting so much historical
evidence (it contains a lot more than people who studied Shakespeare in school
were probably aware of existing), the book does a great service toward bringing
the Bard to life. Any interested in
Shakepeare’s links to Catholicism should give it a try.
