The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.1961 Tuesday, 29 November 2005
[1] From: Bill Lloyd <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Monday, 28 Nov 2005 07:08:39 EST
Subj: Re: SHK 16.1924 Shadowplay
[2] From: Debra Murphy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Monday, 28 Nov 2005 13:23:23 -0800
Subj: RE: Shadowplay
[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bill Lloyd <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Monday, 28 Nov 2005 07:08:39 EST
Subject: 16.1924 Shadowplay
Comment: Re: SHK 16.1924 Shadowplay
I'm afraid I didn't finish reading Claire Asquith's *Shadowplay*-- so
maybe I shouldn't say anything-- and I don't have a copy to hand-- so I
can't quote chapter and verse. But I did read about the first third of
it and dipped into the rest of it here and there, so here's my
pronouncement from on high...
Although this is no doubt an oversimplification on my part, it seemed
she was claiming that almost everything Shakespeare wrote was meant as
an allegory on the Catholic vs. Protestant issues of his day. For
example, when Hermia and Helena enter and one is taller and lords it
over the other, well, that's Rome vs. Protestant England; same with
Rosalind and Celia. An enormous amount of the action and characters of
Shakespeare's plays "really mean" something else. Sound familiar? It's
the kind of special pleading used by Auntie Strat and others with
agendas. Some of what Asquith is arguing for isn't so insane. I think
it's not inconceivable that Shakespeare might have been a Catholic or a
crypto-Catholic, or sympathized with Catholics, but I don't think we'll
ever know for sure or to what extent. And I find it incredible that his
plays, drawn from myriad sources by an eloquent story-teller for the
delectation of audiences high and low are REALLY only the coded
transmissions of subversive homilies [or comprise the secret biography
of a shit of a nobleman].
Another similarity to the Forbidden Subject is that for hundreds of
years no one knew what Shakespeare's plays Really Meant until they were
explicated for us by Ogburn or Asquith. Or rather 'everyone' Really Did
Know back then that Shakespeare was the leading [but secret] Catholic
apologist of his day [or that Oxenford wrote confessional plays for the
groundlings], but they were content to wink at each other and no one
wrote it down, and it remained for us to unearth &c. I am not accusing
Asquith of being anti-Stratfordian, merely observing that her methods of
argument are similar.
The post is ended, go in peace.
Bill Lloyd
[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Debra Murphy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Monday, 28 Nov 2005 13:23:23 -0800
Subject: RE: Shadowplay
For those following the _Shadowplay_ controversy, my interview with the
author, Clare Asquith, is now up on the front page of GodSpy.com, along
with a sort of "summing up" article written by Mrs. Asquith about the
book's thesis.
http://www.godspy.com
Debra Murphy
www.bardolatry.com
_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>
DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.