Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Lazarus 1 Angie Lazarus Dr. Ev Corum Renaissance, HUM 530 12 April 2015 Annotated Bibliography Asquith, Clare. “The Catholic Bard.” Commonweal 132.12 (2005): 10-14. PDF. This short article provides a brief version of Shadowplay. ---. Shadowplay: The Hidden Belief and Coded Politics of William Shakespeare. New York: Public Affairs, 2003. Print. Asquith’s book is a complex and impassioned argument for the idea of a Catholic Shakespeare; its first section recounts the history of the oppression of Catholics during Shakespeare’s lifetime and possible connections. The bulk of the book focuses on her claim that the plays contain an explicitly Catholic and therefore political subplot that audiences would have recognized. One problem this brings up is why only Catholics would have recognized these subtexts; logically, since the culture was hyperaware of religious practice and theology, both censors and careful audience members would have “heard” the code as well. This is a problem Asquith acknowledges but does not satisfactorily solve. Beauregard, David N. “New Light on Shakespeare’s Catholicism: Prospero’s Epilogue in The Tempest.” Renascence 49.3 (1997): 159-74. PDF. Beauregard’s careful study of the last lines of The Tempest interprets it as a carefully couched plea for his soul in Purgatory and therefore evidence of a Catholic imagination if not theology. The most interesting claim is that “crimes” and “pardon” in the penultimate line employ Anglican language, while “faults” and “indulgence” are Catholic (171). He further claims that Shakespeare’s play Lazarus 2 matches the Catholic idea that the soul “working out [its] salvation” is actually made inherently whole rather than merely forensically pardoned (167, 171). While this argument is fascinating, it overstates the discontinuity between the sides; for instance, Catholic doctrine holds that the redeemed soul receives both forensic and inherent perfection. Nevertheless, Beauregard marshals theological sources I cannot help but find useful: Luther, the Tridentine documents, the Book of Common Prayer, King James’ Basilicon Doron, Anglican sermons, and other similar documents. (Note: DB claims that while living in Southwark, Shakespeare did not receive communion in the local Anglican parish (159)—a very suggestive detail.) ---. “Shakespeare and Catholicism.” Religion & the Arts 5.3 (2001): 245-7. Academic Search Premier. Web. 16 May 2015. This short essay introduces a special issue dedicated to the question and is comprised mostly of a review of the debate, including a brief but cogent account of the early work about Shakespeare’s relationship to questions of faith. Benson, Sean. “The Resurrection of the Dead in The Winter’s Tale and The Tempest.” Renascence 61.1 (2008): 3-24. PDF. Benson’s argument relies on a claim by the theologian von Balthasar that in Shakespeare “‘the Christian resurrection from the dead becomes the reappearance of those believed dead’” (3), which he explicitly links to Aristotle’s anagnorisis. Discussion about The Tempest centers around ideas of sin and repentance and the clash of Christian and pagan worlds between which Prospero chooses (13). Bridgen, Susan. New Worlds, Lost Worlds: The Rule of the Tudors, 1485-1603. New York: Penguin, 2000. Print. This book provides valuable background about the English Reformation from a less biased perspective than most sources, describing a “compromise Lazarus 3 church, moored between Rome and Geneva, which was the ideal of the Elizabethan establishment” (330). Bridgen describes the Queen as caught, even forced, by the passions of the partisans to act against her own preference for tolerance—a portrait typical of the older Anglican history (self-image) Asquith remembers as ubiquitous in her own childhood. Its mentions of Shakespeare are incidental. Coonradt, Nicole M. “Shakespeare’s Grand Deception: The Merchant of Venice—Anti-Semitism as “Uncanny Causality” and the Catholic-Protestant Problem.” Religion & the Arts 11.1 (2007): 74-97. Academic Search Premier. Web. 11 May 2015. Crocker, H. W. Triumph: The Power and the Glory of the Catholic Church. Roseville: PrimaForum, 1991. Print. As the title suggests, this book is a popular history of the Catholic Church. Its discussion of the English Renaissance Church is brief. However, Crocker uses lines from Henry V to demonstrate the sharp distinction between a Lutheran faithalone theology with the Catholic balance between faith and faithfulness (238-9). Duffy, Eamon. “The Bishop of Rome and the Catholics of England.” History Today 32.6 (1982): 5-12. PDF. In this essay on the way Catholics’ allegiance to Roman authority has evolved, Duffy makes the claim that at the time of the Reformation, “To many, no doubt, Catholicism was first and foremost ‘the Old Religion’, a matter of traditional observance and ingrained habit which had little to do with ideology” (6). My thought is that if Catholics held to their old ways because as Greeley says our faith is experiential, this applies to Shakespeare too--whatever his actual beliefs. Fenty, Kathleen Doherty. “The Bard of Rome?: Shakespeare and the Catholic Question.” America 14 Sep. 2009. PDF. This review of recent literature on the question includes two insights similar to my own ideas. First, Fenty argues that looking for points of theology in Lazarus 4 Shakespeare is misguided because “theater seeks to entertain, preparing the heart and mind for reflection, while the purpose of sermons is to preach and instruct. Drama is never a sermon. And this would apply to the portrayal of Shakespeare as a proselytizing Protestant, papist renegade or atheist subversive” (24). Second, she claims that “The most promising avenue for appreciating Shakespeare’s Catholicity lies not in biography but rather in the recognition of his Catholic imagination, readily discoverable in his plays” (24). Fielitz, Sonja. “Shakespeare and Catholicism: The Jesuits as Cultural Mediators in Early Modern Europe.” Critical Survey 21.3 (2009): 72-86. Academic Search Premier. Web. 11 May 2015. This article lays out the (circumstantial) evidence that Shakespeare may have been a Catholic. While this territory is covered in much more depth by Milward and Asquith, the article does open with a helpful review of the literature on the subject up to 2009. Greeley, Andrew. The Catholic Imagination. Berkeley, U of California P, 2000. Print. Greeley’s book claims that a person whose imagination is steeped in the rich sensory experiences of the Catholic Mass is always inspired by that imagery. This does not suggest that a person consciously uses Catholic things in his work; my favorite example is Bruce Springsteen. Paired with Parker’s idea of the Mass as theatre, this gives me insight into the way Shakespeare may have refracted religious symbols in his plays. (Note that, logically, an Anglican would have the same experience, or anyone whose religious formation contains strong artistic or literary experiences; I am reminded of Whitman echoing the Authorized Version of the Bible.) Greenblatt, Stephen. Will in the World: How Shakespeare Became Shakespeare. New York: Norton, 2004. Print. This biography is to my mind the resource for Shakespeare’s life. As Lazarus 5 a literary critic, Greenblatt takes into account material in the poet’s work that may be autobiographical or shed light on its author; for instance, he interprets Hamlet (in which the author played the Ghost) through the lens of Hamnet’s death in 1596. He also brings into this discussion the loss of Catholic means of coping with death (particularly the way the Anglican liturgy moves from addressing the deceased as “thou” to discussing the deceased as “him”) (312). There is an interesting discussion of Prospero’s epilogue as well. Richard Hooker. The Works of that Learned and Judicious Divine Mr. Richard Hooker with an Account of His Life and Death by Isaac Walton. Vol. 1. 7th ed. Ed. R. W. Church and F. Paget. Oxford: Clarendon, 1888. Online Library of Liberty. Liberty Fund. Nd. Web. 13 May 2015. I have included Hooker’s work for its straightforward teaching about the Eucharist, and particularly of the Real Presence of Christ. Though he is three hundred years after Shakespeare, Hooker captures the historic Anglican via media in theology and practice. While Hooker, like most Protestants, recognizes only two sacraments (Eucharist and baptism), his language about the Eucharist is so close to Catholic teaching that I learned it first in RCIA. Since I am hoping to discern Eucharistic imagery in the play(s), it is valuable to remember that this doctrine really separates Catholic from Calvinist, not Catholic from Anglican. Hudson, John. “Heretic’s Foundation XV: Is ‘Merchant of Venice’ a Cannibal Satire?” Heretic’s Foundation. The Clyde Fitch Report. 30 Oct. 2009. Web. 12 Apr. 2015. Hudson is an industrial consultant and was at the time of writing dramaturge to the Dark Lady Players. His article lists parallels between the Eucharistic liturgy and Shylock (human flesh, three trials, patens, Te Deum) and concludes, “…Shylock is a fairly blatant allegorical parody Lazarus 6 of the Last Supper as a cannibal feast. This is not anti-Semitic, quite the opposite. It is an anti-Christian satire.” Klause, John. “Catholic and Protestant, Jesuit and Jew: Historical Religion in The Merchant of Venice.” Religion & the Arts 7:1-2 (2003): 65-102. Academic Search Premier. Web. 9 May 2015. Klause’s study focuses on the complex relationships between characters as representatives of their faiths, and ten pages of the text comprise a detailed tracing of the ideas and language of Southwell in Merchant. He makes much of Portia’s devotion and piety, pointing out that she is also a balanced and even flawed character—a person representing a “worldly” but genuine Catholicism. It strikes me that (especially in comparison to Puritanism) the Catholic faith teaches that creation is good and should be enjoyed, and that people of good will ought to enjoy their lives; martyrdom or even asceticism is for unavoidable situations or special callings. In any case, Klause finds this kind of balance inherent in the comic ending, and he argues that it “wins” over the radical self-sacrifice of Antonio (whom he connects with Southwell); he fails to note, I think, that Antonio does not pursue sacrifice but is ready to give it when necessary. Milward, Peter. Shakespeare’s Religious Background. Chicago: Loyola UP, 1975. Print. This volume is often credited as having started the current controversy about Shakespeare’s Catholic references. Milward focuses much attention on the plays rather than the sparse biographical details; for instance, the chapter entitled “The Catholic Clergy” locates lines in The Taming of the Shrew and Love’s Labour’s Lost that refer to places where Catholic priests were executed (68-9). This is precisely the sort of approach I plan to take to locating the Sacraments in the plays. Interestingly, his chapter on “Anglican Liturgy” Lazarus 7 locates numerous echoes of the Book of Common Prayer, including the Te Deum (105)— but all of them would also be found in the Catholic liturgy. Marshall, Peter. The Catholic Priesthood and the English Reformation. Oxford: Clarendon, 1994. Print. Marshall’s detailed explanation of Catholic practice and the Protestant response provides insight that might help clarify when Shakespeare’s references are specifically Catholic. In particular, the chapter on “The Priest as Celebrant” discusses contemporary practices at Masses in England, including liturgical language. Murphy, Debra. “Cracking Shakespeare's Catholic Code: An interview with Clare Asquith.” Godspy. Transmodern Media. 22 Sep. 2005. Web. 10 Apr. 2015. This interview was published on Godspy along with the book’s preface, presumably as publicity. In it, she explains not only her own motives in writing the book, but also gives a reasonable explanation of why English scholars have missed the alleged Catholicism inherent or hidden in the texts: English children grow up learning the “Great Myth” of Elizabethan England and have failed to question it. Parker, John. “What a Piece of Work Is Man: Shakespearean Drama as Marxian Fetish, the Fetish as Sacramental Sublime.” Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies 34.3 (2004): 643-72. Academic Search Premier. Web. 17 May 2015. This complex and deeply philosophical article uses Marx’s idea of fetishism—and in particular his religious and sacramental language—as a lens for reading Shakespeare. The basic insight is that before the Reformation, English theatre was openly and intentionally religious, and English religion was openly and unapologetically theatrical (an important point about the Mass; every Catholic knows that it is a spectacle—a representation of perhaps the most dramatic moment in history). After the Reformation, theatre remained religious in the Lazarus 8 Marxian sense. I think Parker means to suggest that theatre fulfilled a need that the Protestant liturgy could not meet, though the Anglican liturgy contains many of the theatrical elements he mentions (the elevation of the Host in particular). Picard, Liza. Elizabeth’s London: Everyday Life in Elizabethan London. New York: St. Marten’s Griffin, 2003. Print. This popular history contains much entertaining information about life in Shakespeare’s London, including a chapter on “Amusements.” However, the short chapter about religion and witchcraft contains a description of outdoor sermons at the cross in the yard of St. Paul’s, an occasion for anti-Catholic bombast (330-33). This detail conveys a clear sense of the isolation and constant criticism a faithful Catholic would experience. Shakespeare, William. The Merchant of Venice. 1611. The Complete Works of William Shakespeare. London: Amaranth-Masters, 1985. 11-32. Print. Shakespeare, William. The Tempest. 1611. The Complete Works of William Shakespeare. London: Amaranth-Masters, 1985. 11-32. Print. Shakespeare, William. The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark. 1611. The Complete Works of William Shakespeare. London: Amaranth-Masters, 1985. 11-32. Print. Smallwood, Robert. “The End of The Merchant of Venice: Four Versions.” The Merchant of Venice. Ed. Kenneth Myrick. New York: Signet, 1998. Print. This short essay is one of five essays appended to Signet’s version of the play. In it, Smallwood briefly describes four ways different directors have staged the final exit, each one bringing to crescendo the production’s interpretation. I have come back to Smallwood several times because it reminds me that every intelligent reader of Shakespeare finds multiple concerns in all the plays—that is, every reader finds in the plays something that speaks to his or her own Lazarus 9 concerns. Thus a gay man, a rabbi, a feminist, an economist, and a Jesuit are all likely to find in Merchant a story that speaks poignantly to them. None of the interpretations Smallwood describes deviate from the original text, and none allow their concerns to distort it. For one thing, this liberates me: if it is reasonable to find a homosexual subtext in Antonio’s love, it is reasonable to find a Christian and even Eucharistic one as well. Wilson, Ian. Shakespeare: The Evidence: Unlocking the Mysteries of the Man and His Work. New York: St. Martin’s Griffin, 1999. Print. This book deals with many of the mysteries—and rumors—surrounding the historical figure of Shakespeare, including the Marlovian thesis and the claims that he was gay. It is engaging and full of the kinds of details that make popular scholarship sell, and I learned some interesting tidbits I can use in class. But I do not expect to use it in my essay.