Cryptic signatures that ‘prove Shakespeare was a secret Catholic’
Maev
````````````````````````````
(quote)
````````````````````````````
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Time Once Again For The “Secret Catholic” Game
at 11:30 PM
A guestbook for visiting pilgrims to Rome. A handful of signatures
containing references to “Stratford”, circa late 1500s. Hmmm…who do we
know that was from Stratford, living around 1585 or so?
Intrigued?
“Arthurus Stratfordus Wigomniensis” signed the book in 1585, while
“Gulielmus Clerkue Stratfordiensis” arrived in 1589.
…
A third entry in 1587, “Shfordus Cestriensis”, may stand for “Sh
[akespeare from Strat]ford [in the diocese] of Chester”, he said.
Other than the Stratford pointer, you have to get creative.
“Arthurus” is supposed to be “King Arthur’s compatriot”, they say – is
that supposed to be some sort of “I’m from England” reference? The
second one, although it’s apparently in Italian, is a more
straightforward translation - “William, clerk from Stratford.”
It’s always fun to find “evidence” like this, and see how it fits in
the grand scheme of things. I like the idea of accounting for
Shakespeare’s lost years more than I like jumping on the “secret
catholic!” bandwagon, I’ll say that much.
Maev
>
> ````````````````````````````
>
> (quote)
>
> ````````````````````````````
Cryptic signatures that ‘prove Shakespeare was a secret Catholic’
A 1586 entry by "Arthurus Stratfordus", thought to be a pseudonym of
William Shakespeare, in the visitors' book at the Venerable English
College in Rome
Richard Owen in Rome
30 Comments
Recommend? (16)
Three mysterious signatures on pages of parchment bound in leather and
kept under lock and key may prove the theory that William Shakespeare
was a secret Catholic who spent his “lost years” in Italy.
An exhibition at the Venerable English College, the seminary in Rome
for English Catholic priests, has revealed cryptic names in its guest
books for visiting pilgrims, suggesting that the playwright sought
refuge there.
“Arthurus Stratfordus Wigomniensis” signed the book in 1585, while
“Gulielmus Clerkue Stratfordiensis” arrived in 1589.
According to Father Andrew Headon, vice-rector of the college and
organiser of the exhibition, the names can be deciphered as “[King]
Arthur’s [compatriot] from Stratford [in the diocese] of Worcester”
and “William the Clerk from Stratford”.
Related Links
Pilgrim Soul
The hunt for the real Shakespeare is a fruitless act
Ten things you didn't know about Shakespeare
A third entry in 1587, “Shfordus Cestriensis”, may stand for “Sh
[akespeare from Strat]ford [in the diocese] of Chester”, he said.
The entries fall within the playwright’s “missing years” between 1585,
when he left Stratford abruptly, and 1592, when he began his career as
playwright in London.
“There are several years which are unaccounted for in Shakespeare’s
life,” Father Headon said, adding that it was very likely that the
playwright had visited Rome and was a covert Catholic.
The “Shakespeare” entries are being kept in the college’s archive for
security reasons but have been reproduced for the exhibition, which
illustrates the history of the college from its origins as a medieval
pilgrims’ hospice to a refuge for persecuted Catholics during the
Reformation.
Set in the college’s extensive 14th-century crypt, the exhibition
conveys the clandestine atmosphere of underground Catholicism, with
its spies and priests’ bolt holes. It traces the secret journeys made
by Catholics to Rome and by Jesuit priests from Rome to England “to
defend their faith despite the risk of being caught, tortured and
martyred”.
In a recent book, a German biographer of Shakespeare, Hildegard
Hammerschmidt-Hummel, said that she had “come to the conclusion that
Shakespeare was a Catholic and that his religion is the key to
understanding his life and work”.
Professor Hammerschmidt-Hummel said that Shakespeare’s parents,
friends and teachers were Catholics, as were some of his patrons,
including the Earl of Southampton, who concealed Catholic priests at
his country seat, Titchfield Abbey, and his London residence.
Further proof was his purchase of the eastern gatehouse at Blackfriars
— a secret meeting place for fugitive Catholics — in London in 1613,
she said.
Backers of the theory say that plays such as Romeo and Juliet and
Measure for Measure are “rich in Catholic thought and rituals”, with
positive depictions of priests and monks and invocations of the Virgin
Mary.
Five of his 37 plays are set in Italy, another five wholly or partly
in Rome and three in Sicily.
The English College exhibition, Non Angli sed Angeli, runs until July
2010.
Your Comments
colin nicholas wrote:
If Shakespeare were alive today he'd be a big fan of Darwin and
Dawkins, and would find religion nothing more than just another
ancient superstition lacking all veracity.
In Shakespeare's time there were no atheists, people were religious,
and believed in astrology, palm reading and witchcraft and fairies,
and all kinds of other nonsense.
It's hard not to be a man of one's time - superstitions and all.
January 1, 2010 3:09 PM GMT (1)
erin leary wrote:
Whether or not, Mr. Wilmot, you care at all about Shakespeare's
religious affiliations, you may rest assured that he cared very much
indeed. Religious politics were a tricky business in his time. It is
absolute nonsense to claim that any writer of such caliber could or
would ignore the systemic hypocrisy of the monarchies for which he
wrote and performed.
December 31, 2009 9:42 PM GMT
terence patrick hewett wrote:
Speaking as an English Catholic; all this stuff is old hat. It seems,
on the balance of probability, that Shakespeare was a Catholic, but a
Catholic not willing to put his balls on a block to please Richard
Topcliffe and his merry men. I personally think the real giveaway is
not just that Shakespeare’s parents were Catholic, which they were,
but his choice of Catholic godparents for his children. As every
Catholic knows, the job of godparents is to keep the children within
the faith; and they took their religion very seriously in those days;
it was after all a matter of life or death. In reply to Esther Greene;
certainly terrible things were done in Ireland by the English but as
Disraeli remarked to Daniel O’Connell, Cromwell not only conquered the
Irish; he conquered the English as well, and there is an ongoing
debate between my Irish lady love and myself about who got off the
worse. Certainly Shakespeare was a byzantinely devious piece of work,
who took great delight in fooling all and sundry; he didn’t do plays
within plays; he did plays within plays within plays within plays.
Most of the stuff written on Shakespeare is entertaining rot, but I
think the apocryphal story of the wife of an Oxford don comes nearer
to the truth than any. She observed, 'Are yes, Shakespeare, he sends
them all mad in the end.' He is laughing still.
December 31, 2009 9:39 AM GMT (3)
michael gilhooly wrote:
an interestig article; of course there is much in Shakespeare's
writings to infer a strong leaning towards Rome. He was living in a
very painful time for many who felt so persuaded, unfortunately, and
some of the anti - Catholic notions are still in our midst. These
notions seem to have little to do with christian thought and more to
do with a sort of racism.
And may I add -Esther Greene - well said.
December 30, 2009 8:45 PM GMT (2)
Peter Mason wrote:
The college doesn't appear to provide any clear reason for believing
that the signatures are Shakespeare's. As for the assertion that he
was a closet Roman Catholic, again no evidence is presented and it is
just as likely that if he were in Italy he would pretend the Roman
faith rather than be prey to the Inquisition. Of course his fellow
platwright Marlowe spent time in a Catholic college supposedly spying
for the English govt. so....
Amy Campbell wrote:
I've seen nothing at all from the Vatican about this. Because a
Catholic college, or any other Catholic institution in Rome, makes a
statement about something (and from what I've read they've offered up
a look at these sigs, but not asserted that they "prove" anything)
does not mean "the Vatican" has said it, or condones it, or is
"behind" it, in any way. To think that the Vatican is ignorant of
European history is, well, ignorant.
December 28, 2009 10:20 PM GMT
Petras Vilson wrote:
Shakespeare a crypto Catholic ?
Perhaps. We do know Edward de Vere was born 17th Earl of Oxford, a
descendant of Kings and Catholics, a child prodigy, a ward of Lord
Treasurer Burgley (think Polonious), married Burgleys daughter, (think
Ophelia) and led the life of Hamlet (the most autobiographical of
Shakespeares work so say the scholars).
de Vere wrote poetry and plays (all lost except for his earliest
poems), enjoyed all of Shakespeares sports (lawn bowling, jousting,
fishing, tennis, hunting, hawking) travelled to all of Shakepeares 11
Italian cities, spoke Shakespeares 5 languages, had easy access to ALL
of Shakepeares 800 known source works, and left behind an annotated
Geneva Bible (Shakespeares favorite).
Of course, de Vere was Shakespeare. Its well documented and accepted
by many scholars outside of silly egalitarian English depts.
December 28, 2009 6:08 PM GMT (1)
Brian Lewis wrote:
The dissolution of the monasteries in 1536 by Henry VIII and the
subsquent 60 years of English politics made most of us rather careful
of saying what doctrine we subscribed to. However in 1536 that great
man - Tyndale- translator of the Bible into English was executed in
Antwerp. Whatever Shakespeare believed, he lived in an age where using
the native language exposed one to religious attack. And being a
sensible man, I would think he trimmed his sails to the prevailing
wind
December 27, 2009 2:36 AM GMT (2)
Michael Vaughan wrote:
This is another Shakespeare claim that resurfaces at regular intervals
and is purely speculative. Of course, his parents were Catholics like
the rest of their generation.
December 25, 2009 2:53 AM GMT (4)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6964480.ece
> Tuesday, December 22, 2009
>
> Time Once Again For The “Secret Catholic” Game
>
> at 11:30 PM
>
> A guestbook for visiting pilgrims to Rome. A handful of signatures
> containing references to “Stratford”, circa late 1500s. Hmmm…who do we
> know that was from Stratford, living around 1585 or so?
>
> Intrigued?
>
> “Arthurus Stratfordus Wigomniensis” signed the book in 1585, while
> “Gulielmus Clerkue Stratfordiensis” arrived in 1589.
>
> …
>
> A third entry in 1587, “Shfordus Cestriensis”, may stand for “Sh
> [akespeare from Strat]ford [in the diocese] of Chester”, he said.
>
> Other than the Stratford pointer, you have to get creative.
> “Arthurus” is supposed to be “King Arthur’s compatriot”, they say – is
> that supposed to be some sort of “I’m from England” reference? The
> second one, although it’s apparently in Italian, is a more
> straightforward translation - “William, clerk from Stratford.”
>
> It’s always fun to find “evidence” like this, and see how it fits in
> the grand scheme of things. I like the idea of accounting for
> Shakespeare’s lost years more than I like jumping on the “secret
> catholic!” bandwagon, I’ll say that much.
>
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6964480.ece
>
> http://blog.shakespearegeek.com/search?updated-min=2009-01-01T00%3A00...
Maev
>
> > ````````````````````````````
>
> > (quote)
>
> > ````````````````````````````
Your Comments
Martin Paterson wrote:
But of course. All the best people are!
December 22, 2009 11:55 AM GMT (27)
Skelton Eric wrote:
No Martin : They said he was 'Catholic' not Welsh.
December 22, 2009 2:52 PM GMT (14)
Miles Rowley wrote:
Much ado about nothing.
December 22, 2009 3:49 PM GMT (9)
Miles Rowley wrote:
Perhaps one or more of the persons who applaud the view that Catholics
are the best people would care to explain how Friar Lawrence in 'Romeo
and Juliet' makes a _genuine_ case for the superiority of Catholicism,
rather than possible propaganda. Unless this comment is taken purely
as a joke, of course.
The only link that 'Julius Caesar' has with the RCC that I can think
of is that the eponymous hero held the same title as popes- Pontifex
Maximus. I doubt that the bard would have been too eager to reveal
that information, certainly not in contemporary England, though. Of
course, Caesar's instruction "Go bid the priests do present sacrifice,
And bring me their opinions of success" may be a hint!
December 22, 2009 5:48 PM GMT (6)
David Broadbent wrote:
If, as the available evidence shows, Shakespeare had been baptised in
the C of E, and had subsequently lived in accordance with the tenets
of that Church, then he would have been a perfectly good "Catholic" as
that term is defined in the BCP (e.g. in the Nicene Creed, for e.g.).
On the other hand, if he had accepted any allegiance to the Papal
claims of those times, then he would have to be correctly described a
"Papist", which was - and still is - a somewhat different
interpretation.
December 22, 2009 9:34 PM GMT (4)
jayil london wrote:
Martin Paterson wrote:
"But of course. All the best people are!"
Dont forget Blair? Britains most hated man & rightly so.
December 22, 2009 10:00 PM GMT (11)
D A Parsons wrote:
I can go with this. Shakespeare wrote such eloquent and accurate plays
set in Italy.
By the way, America and Americans saved Shakespeare from obscurity.
Does the Pope have any documents to show the Great Bard went to
America?
December 22, 2009 10:14 PM GMT (6)
Miles Rowley wrote:
But then the Renaissance was largely Italian (despite the censorship
of the Vatican). The influence of Italian drama on other European
countries is well known. It's really not a good argument, this.
December 22, 2009 10:42 PM GMT (1)
Nancy Buckley wrote:
Mr. Gonzalez-Just because you seemed to have lost the faith, doesn't
mean that others have. As far as the Shroud of Turin, that is your
opinion. The Shroud has baffled Scientist. Are you by chance a
Scientist? It is my experience that Mexicans are usually very devout,
go figure.
December 23, 2009 1:26 AM GMT (5)
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Maev
>
> > > ````````````````````````````
>
> > > (quote)
>
> > > ````````````````````````````
Esther Greene wrote:
I'm e-mailing from Ireland. I rarely post comments anywhere, but, the
quiet hatred expressed in comments, re Shakespeare, being Catholic,has
forced me to do so.This is the Season of Goodwill, and, why on earth
should some of you be sooo angry at the idea of William Shakespeare
being a 'secret' Catholic? What difference does it make whether he
was, or not? As a proud Irishwoman, who loves the United States, I
would like to point out that I'm a member of a Race that was
persecuted and oppressed from 1642 - 1829, because of the Catholic
Faith, and from 1169 - 1921 just because we were Irish and THEY wanted
all we had. There is very, very little bad feeling between our two
Nations now, and I would hope, that those of you,who have a hatred of
my Faith, would realize that you're being very un-American in your
attitude. I wish you all all that is good and beautiful for 2010, and
beg of you to get rid of all the anti-feelings you have. Life is much
too short. Esther Greene
December 23, 2009 5:05 PM GMT (14)
Jonas Ndluli wrote:
An interesting article.
William is another example - of a Christian who has made a long-
lasting and positive contribution, to humankind's development.
December 23, 2009 8:48 AM GMT (6)
Andrew Scott wrote:
In his BBC series "In Search of Shakespeare" Michael Wood concluded
that Shakespeare was born a Catholic and remained a Catholic. So this
is not a new idea. According to Wood he kept his true faith a secret
because it was a dangerous time to be a Catholic.
December 24, 2009 1:56 AM GMT (7)