• Next message: Hardy M. Cook: "Cartoons"
• Previous message: Hardy M. Cook: "JC and Good Night, and Good Luck"
• Next in thread: Hardy M. Cook: "Shadowplay"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.1961  Tuesday, 29 November 2005

[1] 	From: 	Bill Lloyd <Bnklloyd@aol.com>
	Date: 	Monday, 28 Nov 2005 07:08:39 EST
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 16.1924 Shadowplay

[2] 	From: 	Debra Murphy <dlmurphy601@comcast.net>
	Date: 	Monday, 28 Nov 2005 13:23:23 -0800
	Subj: 	RE: Shadowplay


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Bill Lloyd <Bnklloyd@aol.com>
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 <dlmurphy601@comcast.net>
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, editor@shaksper.net
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.

• Next message: Hardy M. Cook: "Cartoons"
• Previous message: Hardy M. Cook: "JC and Good Night, and Good Luck"
• Next in thread: Hardy M. Cook: "Shadowplay"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]