Joseph Pearce - Through Shakespeare’s Eyes

THROUGH SHAKESPEARES EYES

JOSEPH PEARCE

Seeing the Catholic Presence in the Plays

IGNATIUS PRESS SAN FRANCISCO

Dustjacket art:
Top:
Portrait of William Shakespeare
Antar Dayal / Illustration Works / Corbis

Bottom:

The discovery of Yoricks skull by gravediggers
in a scene from the play Hamlet , by William Shakespeare.
Original Artwork: Engraved after a painting by Eugene Delacroix.
Photo by Hulton Archive / Getty Images

Dustjacket design by Roxanne Mei Lum

2010 Ignatius Press, San Francisco
All rights reserved
ISBN 978-1-58617-413-2
Library of Congress Control Number 2009930112 Printed in the
United States of America

For

Margaret Patricia Pearce
1939-2009

May flights of angels sing thee to thy rest

This volume is intended as a companion to The Quest for Shakespeare , in which the historical, biographical, and documentary evidence for Shakespeares Catholicism is given. It is, however, not merely an appendix to The Quest for Shakespeare but is very much its equal. Whereas the earlier volume assembled the considerable body of evidence pointing to Shakespeares Catholicism that can be found in the facts of his life, the present volume presents a sample of the even greater body of evidence of his Catholicism to be gleaned from his works.

It is only a sampling of the evidence because it would take numerous books to present such evidence systematically. One could easily envisage one separate book for each of the plays, and two more books to present the evidence for the Catholicism in the sonnets and the longer poems. Thus, in order to discover the superabundance of textual evidence for Shakespeares Catholicism, one would have to write not merely a book but a library, or at any rate a whole shelf full of books, totaling more than three dozen volumes. This enormous undertaking, necessitating a close reading of the plays and poems in the light of Shakespeares known Catholicism, is a challenge that I hope will be met by future generations of scholars. In this light, the present volume is little more than a gauntlet thrown down to initiate such a challenge.

The present volume examines only three of the Bards works, The Merchant of Venice, Hamlet , and King Lear , and does so, as its title suggests, by endeavoring to see the plays through Shakespeares own eyes, which is to see them through the eyes of a believing Catholic living in Elizabethan and Jacobean England. The endeavor may seem preposterously large or even preposterously presumptuous, but the alternative is not to see them in any meaningful sense at all. If we see them only through our own eyes, with no effort to see the text in its context, we will not see them as they are but only as we perceive them to be from the shuttered perspective of our own time and our own prejudices. We will not see them objectively but only subjectively. If we see them through the eyes of critics or experts, we might receive greater insights into the plays meaning than we would have if unaided by such guidance, but how do we know that such guides can be trusted? What criterion do we use to differentiate between genuine insight and mere sophistry? Who is the guide whom we can most trust?

Clearly the most reliable guide to a work is the author himself, who has the fullest grasp of all the contextual ingredients that inform and flavor the text. It is, therefore, necessary to understand as much about the author as possible, and as much as possible about the time and culture in which he lived. We need to know the authors most important beliefs, which are those beliefs that inform every aspect of his life. These are his theology and his philosophy. At this juncture we should remind ourselves that everyone works from theological and philosophical presumptions. Even atheism is theological, in the sense that the presumption that God does not exist informs the way that the atheist perceives everything else. The Real Absence of God is as crucial to the atheist as is his Real Presence to the believer. There is, therefore, no escaping Gods primal importance, regardless of whether it springs from the primal assumption that he is or the primal assumption that he is not. It is one of the deepest paradoxes, and perhaps one of Gods funniest jokes, that God is always present even when he is absent.

Returning to our quest for Shakespeare, it should now be obvious why it was necessary, in the first instance, to examine the facts of Shakespeares life before proceeding to an examination of his work. We now know, from an examination of the biographical evidence, that Shakespeare was a Catholic at a time when Catholicism was illegal in England and at a time when Catholics were being persecuted and even put to death. In seeing the plays through Shakespeares eyes, we will be seeing England through the eyes of one who had witnessed the persecution of family and friends and who may even have seen his friends executed by the state. In seeing the plays through Shakespeares eyes, we will be seeing one of the darkest periods in history illuminated by one of its greatest geniuses. To reiterate the words of the preface to The Quest for Shakespeare , seeing the plays through Shakespeares eyes is not merely enlightening but is an adventure in the presence of genius.

This volume differs significantly from its predecessor and companion, The Quest for Shakespeare , in the sense that the sources from which I have been working are the texts of the three plays The Merchant of Venice, Hamlet , and King Lear , along with some of the finer criticism of these plays. I did not have to trawl through dozens of biographies and other studies of Shakespeare in order to bring together all the different threads of his life into one volume. In this sense, the present volume might be said to have been easier to write than was its companion. It was, in any event, easier to research. I think, however, and in spite of such appearances to the contrary, that it was hardly easier to write. Grappling with a genius of Shakespeares magnitude is never easy. It is as exhausting as it is exhilarating! Since, however, much of the book could be said to be a one-on-one encounter with the Bard, there are fewer obvious people to acknowledge for their help in the research and writing of the work. This is at least the case as long as I do not broaden the net of gratitude to include all those who have helped me to read, write, and think more clearly over the course of my life. Such a net deserves to be cast but would be too full to empty into the limited space traditionally allotted to acknowledgments. I shall, therefore, merely mention those names that most obviously and instantly come into my head and apologize for the inevitable oversights and sins of omission.

Those to whom I am indebted for either inspiring or encouraging my journey into the Bardlands include Henry Russell; R. A. Benthall; Aaron Urbanczyk; Travis Curtright; Peter Milward, S.J.; and, last but not least, my father, Albert Pearce. I am grateful to Al Kresta for donating part of his library to the cause of bringing this book to life, and to those at Ave Maria University and Ignatius Press for making it possible for me to write and publish this and my other works.

My wife, Susannah, remains my greatest and dearest critic, reading every chapter as it was written, and our children, Leo and Evangeline, remain a source of inspiration, even though they are not able to read a single word!

Every work of literature is the incarnation of the fruitful relationship between the artist and his Muse. From a Christian perspective, the Muse is the gift of grace; from an atheistic perspective, it is the authors subconscious. In both cases, the work of literature remains an expression of the personhood of the author. In the former case, the Christian believes that the gift of grace is freely given, like the talents in the Gospel parable, and can be used or abused by the artist according to the predilections of his will (much as the gift of life is freely given and can be used or abused). In the latter case, the atheist believes that the subconscious Muse finds expression in the creative process. It can be seen, therefore, that Christians and atheists share the essential belief that the work is the creative incarnation of the personhood of the author. This being so, an authors theological and philosophical beliefs will be the most important influence upon the work, simply because they are the most important influence on the way in which the author perceives reality.