What do you think?
Rate this book
The Quest for Shakespeare: The Bard of Avon and the Church of Rome
Highly regarded and best-selling literary writer and teacher, Joseph Pearce presents a stimulating and vivid biography of the world's most revered writer that is sure to be controversial. Unabashedly provocative, with scholarship, insight and keen observation, Pearce strives to separate historical fact from fiction about the beloved Bard.Shakespeare is not only one of the greatest figures in human history, he is also one of the most controversial and one of the most elusive. He is famous and yet almost unknown. Who was he? What were his beliefs? Can we really understand his plays and his poetry if we don't know the man who wrote them?
These are some of the questions that are asked and answered in this gripping and engaging study of the world's greatest ever poet. "The Quest for Shakespeare" claims that books about the Bard have got him totally wrong. They misread the man and misread the work. The true Shakespeare has eluded the grasp of the critics. Dealing with the facts of Shakespeare's life and times, Pearce's quest leads to the inescapable conclusion that Shakespeare was a believing Catholic living in very anti-Catholic times.
Many of his friends and family were persecuted, and even executed, for their Catholic faith. And yet he seems to have avoided any notable persecution himself. How did he do this? How did he respond to the persecution of his friends and family? What did he say about the dreadful and intolerant times in which he found himself? "The Quest for Shakespeare" answers these questions in ways that will enlighten and astonish those who love Shakespeare's work, and that will shock and outrage many of his critics. This book is full of surprises for beginner and expert alike.
These are some of the questions that are asked and answered in this gripping and engaging study of the world's greatest ever poet. "The Quest for Shakespeare" claims that books about the Bard have got him totally wrong. They misread the man and misread the work. The true Shakespeare has eluded the grasp of the critics. Dealing with the facts of Shakespeare's life and times, Pearce's quest leads to the inescapable conclusion that Shakespeare was a believing Catholic living in very anti-Catholic times.
Many of his friends and family were persecuted, and even executed, for their Catholic faith. And yet he seems to have avoided any notable persecution himself. How did he do this? How did he respond to the persecution of his friends and family? What did he say about the dreadful and intolerant times in which he found himself? "The Quest for Shakespeare" answers these questions in ways that will enlighten and astonish those who love Shakespeare's work, and that will shock and outrage many of his critics. This book is full of surprises for beginner and expert alike.
275 pages, Hardcover
First published April 1, 2008
15 people are currently reading
399 people want to read
About the author
Joseph Pearce
175 books288 followersLibrarian Note: There is more than one author with this name on GR
Joseph Pearce (born 1961) is an English-born writer, and as of 2004 Writer in Residence and Professor of Literature at Ave Maria University in Ave Maria, Florida; previously he had a comparable position, from 2001, at Ave Maria College in Ypsilanti, Michigan. He is known for a number of literary biographies, many of Catholic figures. Formerly aligned with the National Front, a white nationalist political party, he converted to Roman Catholicism in 1989, repudiated his earlier views, and now writes from a Catholic perspective. He is a co-editor of the St. Austin Review and editor-in-chief of Sapientia Press.
Joseph Pearce (born 1961) is an English-born writer, and as of 2004 Writer in Residence and Professor of Literature at Ave Maria University in Ave Maria, Florida; previously he had a comparable position, from 2001, at Ave Maria College in Ypsilanti, Michigan. He is known for a number of literary biographies, many of Catholic figures. Formerly aligned with the National Front, a white nationalist political party, he converted to Roman Catholicism in 1989, repudiated his earlier views, and now writes from a Catholic perspective. He is a co-editor of the St. Austin Review and editor-in-chief of Sapientia Press.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 38 reviews
January 16, 2016
Going into this book I was a bit skeptical of Joseph Pearce's thesis that the evidence points overwhelmingly to Shakespeare being a Catholic. Although I'm a Catholic myself, I'd prefer not to engage in wishful thinking. Further, Shakespeare not being a Catholic would not, in my mind, make him any less of a genius.
Despite those reservations, I believe Pearce has made his case. Of course, there is no definitive proof on Shakespeare's religion one way or another. Given how little we know of him outside his plays, any statement of his own remains missing from the portrait Pearce paints. However, everything else in that portrait points almost entirely in one direction, making it more than possible to be very sure (albeit not 100% sure) of Shakespeare's religion.
There are a number of things Pearce does definitively prove that suggest that conclusion:
1. We know that Shakespeare's parents and much of his family were Catholic.
2. We know that he was educated by a Catholic
3. We know he was married by a Catholic priest (albeit in an Anglican parish. A legal necessity at the time)
4. We know that later in life he purchased a property with a long history of hiding persecuted Catholics
Those facts along paint a very compelling picture. Pearce complements them with a great deal of circumstantial evidence regarding Shakespeare's London career.
Finally, Pearce makes the case overwhelmingly that it is those who want to paint Shakespeare as an a-religious figure are the ones engaging in wishful thinking and remaking him in their image.
This book focuses almost entirely on biographical evidence. I'm looking forward to reading the second book where Pearce looks at textual evidence from the plays
Despite those reservations, I believe Pearce has made his case. Of course, there is no definitive proof on Shakespeare's religion one way or another. Given how little we know of him outside his plays, any statement of his own remains missing from the portrait Pearce paints. However, everything else in that portrait points almost entirely in one direction, making it more than possible to be very sure (albeit not 100% sure) of Shakespeare's religion.
There are a number of things Pearce does definitively prove that suggest that conclusion:
1. We know that Shakespeare's parents and much of his family were Catholic.
2. We know that he was educated by a Catholic
3. We know he was married by a Catholic priest (albeit in an Anglican parish. A legal necessity at the time)
4. We know that later in life he purchased a property with a long history of hiding persecuted Catholics
Those facts along paint a very compelling picture. Pearce complements them with a great deal of circumstantial evidence regarding Shakespeare's London career.
Finally, Pearce makes the case overwhelmingly that it is those who want to paint Shakespeare as an a-religious figure are the ones engaging in wishful thinking and remaking him in their image.
This book focuses almost entirely on biographical evidence. I'm looking forward to reading the second book where Pearce looks at textual evidence from the plays
June 8, 2021
*read for Medieval History class
I really enjoyed rereading this book! I trust Joseph Pearce's judgement when it comes to historical figures (in general), and so it was actually kind of a relaxing scholarly read, if there can be such a thing?
I love how he distinguishes between things that we can say probably happened and things that we can say *possibly* happened...no wishful thinking for this historian.
And I think he makes his point!
Excellent book. Four stars.
I really enjoyed rereading this book! I trust Joseph Pearce's judgement when it comes to historical figures (in general), and so it was actually kind of a relaxing scholarly read, if there can be such a thing?
I love how he distinguishes between things that we can say probably happened and things that we can say *possibly* happened...no wishful thinking for this historian.
And I think he makes his point!
Excellent book. Four stars.
July 22, 2020
The debate over Shakespeare's personal beliefs was one of the things we covered in my college studies, and one of the possibilities we discussed was the idea of him being a secret Catholic or Catholic-sympathizer during a time when the English government was hunting down and executing recusant Catholics. Based on what we learned, I'd come to the conclusion that, although I wasn't sure Shakespeare was a Catholic himself, it seemed likely he sympathized with them more than most English people and more than would have been safe at the time.
This book looks at the evidence and uses 'what is certain, what is probable, and what is possible' in Shakespeare's life to explore and ultimately support the idea that Shakespeare was not only sympathetic but actually a member of the Catholic Church himself. Some arguments in this book I found more convincing than others, but the concrete evidence alone seems enough to suggest that Shakespeare was actually a Catholic, just a few of which are:
-the fact that his father and mother both came from famously Catholic families and his father was frequently listed as a recusant (suggesting at the very least that Shakespeare probably grew up in a Catholic home)
-the references to specifically Catholic ideas in his plays being not only sympathetic, but correct, unlike those of his contemporaries
-the fact that he went out of his way to get married in a parish not his own - including a special license - by a (quietly) Catholic priest
-his purchase near the end of his life of a property infamous for conducting secret Catholic activities including Masses, and his immediately leasing it to a known Catholic troublemaker
-the large number of his close friends who were themselves known to be Catholic recusants, as reflected in his relationships during his lifetime and by the beneficiaries of his will after his death
These points alone seem enough to convince me that, although we might not ever know for certain (given how difficult it is to collect evidence of a belief that was getting people killed), it is more likely than not that William Shakespeare was a Catholic who managed not to get caught because of his own cautiousness and his favor with the queen. When we add some of the circumstantial evidence, even just a little, it becomes even more likely.
Aside from the main argument, I also liked that I learned so much about other topics of the time period. For example, I had no idea that the infamous "Somerville plot" against the queen was in fact not an organized plot at all, but a single man - most likely of unsound mind - making an unwise threat that he probably had no ability or inclination to follow through on.
It was also interesting to learn more about the Reformation of this time - we had briefly covered this time period in some of my high school classes, but I didn't realize that the laws against Catholics by the Protestant state included things like not being able to vote and being banned from attending college.
Some of the analysis of his work was also fascinating - although in general I was somewhat skeptical of the cryptic clues hidden in Shakespeare's plays that supposedly point to his Catholic faith (of course it's possible, but it seems very hard to prove most of these? and some of them felt like quite a stretch), I thought the focus on the closing speech of The Tempest was extremely interesting and pretty convincing.
However, there were some negatives here:
1. In some places Pearce seems to discount looking at art through any lens that is not the author's own. While I acknowledge the importance of knowing and studying the context of the author's intentions and background, I don't agree that other lenses are never useful or appropriate.
2. There's a short chapter on the possibility of Shakespeare being gay. The reasons Pearce gives for finding it unconvincing are 1) that men expressed friendship in language we would consider very romantic today (mostly true), 2) that most members of society at this time, especially Christians, would have considered this a mortal sin and so it's unlikely Shakespeare would have put these references in his plays or acted on them himself, and 3) that because of this, modern scholars should be careful not to place modern interpretations on historical figures.
Personally I don't agree, except with #1. Again, we might not know for sure if Shakespeare was queer or not (though I think it's somewhat likely he was), but these reasons don't seem convincing, mostly because there have been queer people around forever and there have also been queer *religious* people around forever (though of course with varying degrees of openness.)
3. There's a quoted joke included at the very end that basically stereotypes Jewish names as a way of showing how we can draw some conclusions based on probability. I don't think it's intended maliciously (though keep in mind I am not Jewish myself) and it's definitely a very small moment in the book, but it seemed an odd way to end and I think it was unnecessary.
One last thing that didn't bother me but I could see bothering other readers: Pearce adopts the tone of what he's describing. This means that when he's referring to other historians who are dismissive or condescending, he can be dismissive or condescending right back; and also that when he's writing of the time period he uses the language of the time, like whether or not someone died with their soul "saved" at the time of their death based on whether they were baptized, if someone were a follower of the true Church (meaning Catholicism), etc. Like I said, this didn't bother me because I think the author was using it for reasons of authenticity or style, but it's something that might annoy some readers.
Who would I recommend this to? People who love Shakespeare, people with an interest in the English Reformation, people interested in one possible explanation of Shakespeare's beliefs, etc. I definitely don't think you need to be Catholic to follow the book as Pearce does a good job of explaining his points, but obviously if you don't want to read books connected to Christianity this one probably wouldn't work for you.
All in all, there were some issues I took points off for, but overall this was a solid, well-researched, and compellingly written book with some convincing and interesting points.
CW: Religious intolerance, brief descriptions of torture, questionable language discussed above
This book looks at the evidence and uses 'what is certain, what is probable, and what is possible' in Shakespeare's life to explore and ultimately support the idea that Shakespeare was not only sympathetic but actually a member of the Catholic Church himself. Some arguments in this book I found more convincing than others, but the concrete evidence alone seems enough to suggest that Shakespeare was actually a Catholic, just a few of which are:
-the fact that his father and mother both came from famously Catholic families and his father was frequently listed as a recusant (suggesting at the very least that Shakespeare probably grew up in a Catholic home)
-the references to specifically Catholic ideas in his plays being not only sympathetic, but correct, unlike those of his contemporaries
-the fact that he went out of his way to get married in a parish not his own - including a special license - by a (quietly) Catholic priest
-his purchase near the end of his life of a property infamous for conducting secret Catholic activities including Masses, and his immediately leasing it to a known Catholic troublemaker
-the large number of his close friends who were themselves known to be Catholic recusants, as reflected in his relationships during his lifetime and by the beneficiaries of his will after his death
These points alone seem enough to convince me that, although we might not ever know for certain (given how difficult it is to collect evidence of a belief that was getting people killed), it is more likely than not that William Shakespeare was a Catholic who managed not to get caught because of his own cautiousness and his favor with the queen. When we add some of the circumstantial evidence, even just a little, it becomes even more likely.
Aside from the main argument, I also liked that I learned so much about other topics of the time period. For example, I had no idea that the infamous "Somerville plot" against the queen was in fact not an organized plot at all, but a single man - most likely of unsound mind - making an unwise threat that he probably had no ability or inclination to follow through on.
It was also interesting to learn more about the Reformation of this time - we had briefly covered this time period in some of my high school classes, but I didn't realize that the laws against Catholics by the Protestant state included things like not being able to vote and being banned from attending college.
Some of the analysis of his work was also fascinating - although in general I was somewhat skeptical of the cryptic clues hidden in Shakespeare's plays that supposedly point to his Catholic faith (of course it's possible, but it seems very hard to prove most of these? and some of them felt like quite a stretch), I thought the focus on the closing speech of The Tempest was extremely interesting and pretty convincing.
However, there were some negatives here:
1. In some places Pearce seems to discount looking at art through any lens that is not the author's own. While I acknowledge the importance of knowing and studying the context of the author's intentions and background, I don't agree that other lenses are never useful or appropriate.
2. There's a short chapter on the possibility of Shakespeare being gay. The reasons Pearce gives for finding it unconvincing are 1) that men expressed friendship in language we would consider very romantic today (mostly true), 2) that most members of society at this time, especially Christians, would have considered this a mortal sin and so it's unlikely Shakespeare would have put these references in his plays or acted on them himself, and 3) that because of this, modern scholars should be careful not to place modern interpretations on historical figures.
Personally I don't agree, except with #1. Again, we might not know for sure if Shakespeare was queer or not (though I think it's somewhat likely he was), but these reasons don't seem convincing, mostly because there have been queer people around forever and there have also been queer *religious* people around forever (though of course with varying degrees of openness.)
3. There's a quoted joke included at the very end that basically stereotypes Jewish names as a way of showing how we can draw some conclusions based on probability. I don't think it's intended maliciously (though keep in mind I am not Jewish myself) and it's definitely a very small moment in the book, but it seemed an odd way to end and I think it was unnecessary.
One last thing that didn't bother me but I could see bothering other readers: Pearce adopts the tone of what he's describing. This means that when he's referring to other historians who are dismissive or condescending, he can be dismissive or condescending right back; and also that when he's writing of the time period he uses the language of the time, like whether or not someone died with their soul "saved" at the time of their death based on whether they were baptized, if someone were a follower of the true Church (meaning Catholicism), etc. Like I said, this didn't bother me because I think the author was using it for reasons of authenticity or style, but it's something that might annoy some readers.
Who would I recommend this to? People who love Shakespeare, people with an interest in the English Reformation, people interested in one possible explanation of Shakespeare's beliefs, etc. I definitely don't think you need to be Catholic to follow the book as Pearce does a good job of explaining his points, but obviously if you don't want to read books connected to Christianity this one probably wouldn't work for you.
All in all, there were some issues I took points off for, but overall this was a solid, well-researched, and compellingly written book with some convincing and interesting points.
CW: Religious intolerance, brief descriptions of torture, questionable language discussed above
December 19, 2014
Perhaps the best of all the Shakespearian biographies, if only for its cold insistence on documentary evidence and what can reliably be deduced from it. It's refreshing to have a biography that focuses on "Shakespeare: his life and how he lived it, and his beliefs and how he believed them" instead of the willy-nilly ranting of most other books, which focus almost exclusively on what the commentator would *like* Shakespeare to do and *prefer* Shakespeare to believe.
It's incomparably better than Greenblatt's Will in the World, which ignored a good half of the known, proven documentary evidence and fills most of its pages with either the author's (useless, uninformed) opinions or a constant travelogue through Elizabethan England.
It's incomparably better than Greenblatt's Will in the World, which ignored a good half of the known, proven documentary evidence and fills most of its pages with either the author's (useless, uninformed) opinions or a constant travelogue through Elizabethan England.
August 5, 2018
I’m on a serious Shakespeare kick so I had to reread this one. I love Joseph Pearce’s writings. He presents everything in a really accessible way. The volume is very informative and the research honestly reviewed. I would definitely recommend it. It’s also a good glimpse into the Elizabethan times and the sufferings that the persecuted Catholics endured.
July 23, 2015
Concise but thorough. Engaging.
January 18, 2018
Absolutely convincing case that William Shakespeare was a Papist. And a great read too!
July 15, 2021
I’m convinced…
March 9, 2017
Although April 23rd is, historically, the feast of England’s patron saint George, it is also the anniversary of William Shakespeare’s death. 2016 marks the 400th year since England’s most famous author went to his grave, and in way of honoring him I read Joseph Pearce’s The Quest for Shakespeare. I’ve heard Pearce speak on Shakespeare before, rebutting arguments that other personalities wrote the plays and that Shakespeare is just given credit for them, like Homer. I’d assume Quest would follow the same tack, which it does in its introductory chapter, but the real heart of Quest is Pearce’s case for Shakespeare being Catholic. Although there’s no direct evidence, Pearce argues that the Bard’s loyalties can be inferred from various connections and relationships.
Shakespeare’s religion isn’t just interesting trivia: he lived in the age of Elizabeth, when Henry VIII’s divorce from Rome was visiting the land with terror and blood. As covered in Come Rack! Come Rope! and Faith and Treason, those who did not attend Anglican services were fined heavily, and Catholic priests were brutally executed. After the Pope’s bull declaring Elizabeth an unlawful monarch, Catholicism had the same ring as treason. Shakespeare’s father and daughter were both listed and fined as ‘recusants’, establishing the Shakespeare family as Catholic, if not William himself. His close associations with other Catholics, like a hanged Jesuit priest named Southwell, and the Arden family who were damned in the Somerset plot, throw a Roman light on him, as does his purchase and maintenance of a house used for hiding priests and performing illegal Masses. That last was compelling for me, especially when combined with the fact that he went out of his way to engage a crypto-Catholic priest to perform his wedding ceremony.
Pearce's underlying argument is that Shakespeare is not some empty vessel to be filled with the values of his critics, but a man in his own flesh whose values shaped his work. He writes that if Shakespeare were Catholic, this would give the plays a certain moral tone, and closes the book with two appending sections which offer a guide to the moral interpretation of Shakespeare, and an example of it in "King Lear". Though Pearce flirts with seeing his own desires in Shakespeare himself, he errs on the side of caution more often than not. He does have a marked enthusiasm for the central idea, at one point speculating that the lack of information about Shakespeare's early life in London might indicate that he was living a quiet moral life free of scandal. Well, perhaps, but presumably Anglicans are just as capable of living quiet, moral lives free of scandal. Even if there were an overt Christian theme in the plays, that wouldn't necessitate an overt Catholic theme. At best in "King Lear" there are characters complaining about the times they lived in, but if someone isn't complaining you're not in the real world, you're in the first version of the Matrix, the one that failed because no one believed in it.
Although too little is known about Shakespeare's life to declare his beliefs or politics with surety -- and interpreting plays is tricky, as anyone can read anything into them -- the amount of connections suggests that even if Shakespeare wasn't an observant Catholic himself, his sense of drama and justice would be influenced by the spectre of his friends being persecuted and even killed by the court...and that is an aspect wholly missed by every teacher on Shakespeare I've ever had.
Shakespeare’s religion isn’t just interesting trivia: he lived in the age of Elizabeth, when Henry VIII’s divorce from Rome was visiting the land with terror and blood. As covered in Come Rack! Come Rope! and Faith and Treason, those who did not attend Anglican services were fined heavily, and Catholic priests were brutally executed. After the Pope’s bull declaring Elizabeth an unlawful monarch, Catholicism had the same ring as treason. Shakespeare’s father and daughter were both listed and fined as ‘recusants’, establishing the Shakespeare family as Catholic, if not William himself. His close associations with other Catholics, like a hanged Jesuit priest named Southwell, and the Arden family who were damned in the Somerset plot, throw a Roman light on him, as does his purchase and maintenance of a house used for hiding priests and performing illegal Masses. That last was compelling for me, especially when combined with the fact that he went out of his way to engage a crypto-Catholic priest to perform his wedding ceremony.
Pearce's underlying argument is that Shakespeare is not some empty vessel to be filled with the values of his critics, but a man in his own flesh whose values shaped his work. He writes that if Shakespeare were Catholic, this would give the plays a certain moral tone, and closes the book with two appending sections which offer a guide to the moral interpretation of Shakespeare, and an example of it in "King Lear". Though Pearce flirts with seeing his own desires in Shakespeare himself, he errs on the side of caution more often than not. He does have a marked enthusiasm for the central idea, at one point speculating that the lack of information about Shakespeare's early life in London might indicate that he was living a quiet moral life free of scandal. Well, perhaps, but presumably Anglicans are just as capable of living quiet, moral lives free of scandal. Even if there were an overt Christian theme in the plays, that wouldn't necessitate an overt Catholic theme. At best in "King Lear" there are characters complaining about the times they lived in, but if someone isn't complaining you're not in the real world, you're in the first version of the Matrix, the one that failed because no one believed in it.
Although too little is known about Shakespeare's life to declare his beliefs or politics with surety -- and interpreting plays is tricky, as anyone can read anything into them -- the amount of connections suggests that even if Shakespeare wasn't an observant Catholic himself, his sense of drama and justice would be influenced by the spectre of his friends being persecuted and even killed by the court...and that is an aspect wholly missed by every teacher on Shakespeare I've ever had.
March 15, 2009
Fascinating look at the master during a particularly nasty period. It is amazing how beauty can come out of such darkness. Proof of God's mercy, I suppose. Based on today's ugliness, I am confident that there are masters amongst us. Maybe you are one?
July 17, 2008
I recently had the pleasure of hearing Joseph Pearce speak about this book at a conference. am really looking forward to reading it.
February 1, 2024
Joseph Pearce writes with such a unique combination of scholarship, passion, and humor. His books are a delight to read.
I actually finished his followup to this work - Through Shakespeare's Eyes: Seeing the Catholic Presence in the Plays - prior to this one. I think I got bogged down a bit, mid-journey though The Quest for Shakespeare, with the political ins and outs of Elizabethan England and the whos and whats and wheres of the continual persecution of Catholics under her reign. So, I set it aside. How glad I am to have picked it up again!
Having painstakingly established the strong Catholic faith of Shakespeare's family, introduced those prominent Catholics who met differing and seldom pleasant fates, and vividly painted the atmosphere of mistrust and secrecy that surrounded those who refused to enter the Anglican Communion during the reigns of Elizabeth I and James I, Pearce is ready to take on some of the pernicious rumors of Shakespeare's proclivities (here's a gem from Pearce to whet your appetite: "Were [his postmodern critics] able to see the works [as those of a Catholic genius] they would see, and understand, that the eroticism of the sonnets is more akin to the erotic symbolism of the Song of Songs than to anything modernity understands by the erotic, and they would begin to see that the sonnets have more to do with the psalmody of David than with the sodomy of Gomorrah." p.134), introduce us to his sworn enemies (I, for one, loved that Shakespeare had enemies!), and unravel the mysteries of his late in life property purchases.
The two appendices alone are worth the price of this book. Appendix A is a passionate exhortation to listen to the author as an actual human person when evaluating his work - i.e., do not overlay your own fetishes and peccadillos onto the work and make claims about it or the author based on your particular prejudices. It is a good word - and he roasts one of my faves Harold Bloom a bit in the writing of it, but I think Dr. Bloom's takedown is well-deserved. Plus, Pearce uses the phrase, "a plethora of postmodern parvenus," in this essay, and I just wanted to kiss him for that.
Appendix B is a long essay entitled "King Lear - Finding the Comedy in the Tragedy." Much of this was reused and expanded in Through Shakespeare's Eyes and it was probably my favorite section of that book. Reading it anew here, at the end of this long exploration of how Shakespeare managed to walk a fine line between practicing his Catholic faith and staying in the good graces of local and national authorities - considering how exhausting that must have been, how he watched friends and family on the receiving end of this persecution, how he may have struggled for spiritual nourishment - Pearce's take on Lear touched me exceedingly. Simply beautiful.
I found the presentation of the arguments for Shakespeare's lifelong Catholic faith to be convincing. Of course, much like the Pemberley trio visiting Elizabeth at the inn at Lambton, I was ready, eager, and determined to be pleased and won over. Of all the evidence Pearce presents, probably the most convincing for me was the mystery of Shakespeare's purchase of Blackfriars Gatehouse in March 1613. Why this particular piece of property - the only property he ever purchased in London? Why would he engage so profoundly with a location that was a known hotbed of Catholic rebellion - hiding priests, offering Masses, giving succor to the persecuted? Why appoint a recusant Catholic, John Robinson, as its overseer, unless Shakespeare was fully in support of this endeavor and sought the prayers of the faithful for his soul in providing this sanctuary? For me, that pretty much was the point of definite ownership of his faith in a very public way. Where his heart was, his treasure was placed.
I actually finished his followup to this work - Through Shakespeare's Eyes: Seeing the Catholic Presence in the Plays - prior to this one. I think I got bogged down a bit, mid-journey though The Quest for Shakespeare, with the political ins and outs of Elizabethan England and the whos and whats and wheres of the continual persecution of Catholics under her reign. So, I set it aside. How glad I am to have picked it up again!
Having painstakingly established the strong Catholic faith of Shakespeare's family, introduced those prominent Catholics who met differing and seldom pleasant fates, and vividly painted the atmosphere of mistrust and secrecy that surrounded those who refused to enter the Anglican Communion during the reigns of Elizabeth I and James I, Pearce is ready to take on some of the pernicious rumors of Shakespeare's proclivities (here's a gem from Pearce to whet your appetite: "Were [his postmodern critics] able to see the works [as those of a Catholic genius] they would see, and understand, that the eroticism of the sonnets is more akin to the erotic symbolism of the Song of Songs than to anything modernity understands by the erotic, and they would begin to see that the sonnets have more to do with the psalmody of David than with the sodomy of Gomorrah." p.134), introduce us to his sworn enemies (I, for one, loved that Shakespeare had enemies!), and unravel the mysteries of his late in life property purchases.
The two appendices alone are worth the price of this book. Appendix A is a passionate exhortation to listen to the author as an actual human person when evaluating his work - i.e., do not overlay your own fetishes and peccadillos onto the work and make claims about it or the author based on your particular prejudices. It is a good word - and he roasts one of my faves Harold Bloom a bit in the writing of it, but I think Dr. Bloom's takedown is well-deserved. Plus, Pearce uses the phrase, "a plethora of postmodern parvenus," in this essay, and I just wanted to kiss him for that.
Appendix B is a long essay entitled "King Lear - Finding the Comedy in the Tragedy." Much of this was reused and expanded in Through Shakespeare's Eyes and it was probably my favorite section of that book. Reading it anew here, at the end of this long exploration of how Shakespeare managed to walk a fine line between practicing his Catholic faith and staying in the good graces of local and national authorities - considering how exhausting that must have been, how he watched friends and family on the receiving end of this persecution, how he may have struggled for spiritual nourishment - Pearce's take on Lear touched me exceedingly. Simply beautiful.
I found the presentation of the arguments for Shakespeare's lifelong Catholic faith to be convincing. Of course, much like the Pemberley trio visiting Elizabeth at the inn at Lambton, I was ready, eager, and determined to be pleased and won over. Of all the evidence Pearce presents, probably the most convincing for me was the mystery of Shakespeare's purchase of Blackfriars Gatehouse in March 1613. Why this particular piece of property - the only property he ever purchased in London? Why would he engage so profoundly with a location that was a known hotbed of Catholic rebellion - hiding priests, offering Masses, giving succor to the persecuted? Why appoint a recusant Catholic, John Robinson, as its overseer, unless Shakespeare was fully in support of this endeavor and sought the prayers of the faithful for his soul in providing this sanctuary? For me, that pretty much was the point of definite ownership of his faith in a very public way. Where his heart was, his treasure was placed.
June 5, 2023
2.5
To start off, i don’t consider myself a huge fan of shakespeare. I read most of his works in hs because i had to and enjoyed very little of it. (Hamlet was one of the first books i read as a child though, and i somewhat enjoyed it.) As a catholic, i suppose i have to somewhat care about his faith, but I mostly read this out of curiosity about the idea that he was, not because i was invested in the outcome.
First, he takes a second to get off the ground from his intro. He’s clever with language, but it’s exaggerated or polemic in tone. Though i’m sure he cares for the actual arguments, it comes off as being more concerned about sounding certain than showing certainty. While he makes some good points, a lot of the evidence seems shaky, more conjecture, or at least a slight stretch. I am not doubting it’s possible (God knows i’m willing to believe things that may seem even less provable!) but it’s not quite enough to make me believe beyond reasonable doubt each individual piece of “evidence”. Perhaps he’s just not explaining it well (given his focus on making it SOUND convincing and irrefutable) and the texts he references are better sources. He also critiques other “scholars” as part of his argument. By discrediting them, he discredits anything they say. I’m not disagreeing with this tactic, as it’s a valid method (and i happen to agree with said points anyway), but the overall tone of the book stoops down to dip in the pool of ideological racket rather than emerges as scholarly work. (The most convincing evidence and what i basically got out of the book was his connections to catholic community. Idk if there’s enough evidence to say he was connected to everyone mentioned, but running in catholic circles must have had some influence even if he wasn’t outright catholic.)
The book also sounds a bit repetitive as it goes on. He attempts to do an analysis of a specific writing sample in the light of catholicism, and though he didn’t go as in depth as i would’ve hoped, i wish more of the book had been in this vein (textual analysis). I guess that’s his next book, though i’m undecided if i want to read it. (I had to buy this book since the library system did not have it. I got it at a steep discount even though it was in mint condition, but i’m not sure i’d want to spend money on another book of his if it’s anything like this one. Physically, it was well-constructed but that has never influenced the quality of writing.)
He’s a good writer when it comes to ability but i wonder if he could be employing his talents in “graver labor”. Overall, a bit disappointing.
To start off, i don’t consider myself a huge fan of shakespeare. I read most of his works in hs because i had to and enjoyed very little of it. (Hamlet was one of the first books i read as a child though, and i somewhat enjoyed it.) As a catholic, i suppose i have to somewhat care about his faith, but I mostly read this out of curiosity about the idea that he was, not because i was invested in the outcome.
First, he takes a second to get off the ground from his intro. He’s clever with language, but it’s exaggerated or polemic in tone. Though i’m sure he cares for the actual arguments, it comes off as being more concerned about sounding certain than showing certainty. While he makes some good points, a lot of the evidence seems shaky, more conjecture, or at least a slight stretch. I am not doubting it’s possible (God knows i’m willing to believe things that may seem even less provable!) but it’s not quite enough to make me believe beyond reasonable doubt each individual piece of “evidence”. Perhaps he’s just not explaining it well (given his focus on making it SOUND convincing and irrefutable) and the texts he references are better sources. He also critiques other “scholars” as part of his argument. By discrediting them, he discredits anything they say. I’m not disagreeing with this tactic, as it’s a valid method (and i happen to agree with said points anyway), but the overall tone of the book stoops down to dip in the pool of ideological racket rather than emerges as scholarly work. (The most convincing evidence and what i basically got out of the book was his connections to catholic community. Idk if there’s enough evidence to say he was connected to everyone mentioned, but running in catholic circles must have had some influence even if he wasn’t outright catholic.)
The book also sounds a bit repetitive as it goes on. He attempts to do an analysis of a specific writing sample in the light of catholicism, and though he didn’t go as in depth as i would’ve hoped, i wish more of the book had been in this vein (textual analysis). I guess that’s his next book, though i’m undecided if i want to read it. (I had to buy this book since the library system did not have it. I got it at a steep discount even though it was in mint condition, but i’m not sure i’d want to spend money on another book of his if it’s anything like this one. Physically, it was well-constructed but that has never influenced the quality of writing.)
He’s a good writer when it comes to ability but i wonder if he could be employing his talents in “graver labor”. Overall, a bit disappointing.
May 4, 2025
Interesting historical context, but this felt like reading a college essay stretched out to 200 pages. A significant amount of repetition, overly emotional revulsion of other readings of Shakespeare, (boy does the author HATE post-modernists..), and a lot of writing that makes it seem like the author is both trying to stretch a word count, and trying to sound more profound to impress the audience. He often doubles up on his adjectives for a sentence with two similar enough words that he really should have just picked one. Used sparingly, the technique stresses a single sentence it's used in, but used too much it sounds pretentious. I found three examples in a single two page spread: "Encompass and encapsulate,” "Salient and sapient," "The limit and the summit". An interesting enough topic, but not very grippingly written.
September 7, 2022
Fascinating! I thought the idea that "Shakespeare was a Catholic" was just wishful thinking, but Joseph Pearce presents the evidence which shows that he very probably was. I appreciated the clear distinctions he made between what we know, what is probable, and was is possible.
The information about the recusant Catholics and persecution of England's Catholics during Shakespeare's life among his family, friends and possible acquaintances was especially interesting to me. This made me want to revisit "Come Rack, Come Rope" and I'm definitely going to read Sigrid Undset's essays on Southwell and Clitherow in "Stages On The Road" next.
The information about the recusant Catholics and persecution of England's Catholics during Shakespeare's life among his family, friends and possible acquaintances was especially interesting to me. This made me want to revisit "Come Rack, Come Rope" and I'm definitely going to read Sigrid Undset's essays on Southwell and Clitherow in "Stages On The Road" next.
July 15, 2024
Looking ahead in my homeschool curriculum, I noticed that by the end of high school, we would be covering every. Single. One. of Shakespeare’s plays, and I wondered: do we really need to do that in our Catholic homeschool? Is Shakespeare *really* that important? I absolutely hated reading the couple that I read in school, so why would I want to inflict ALL of them on myself and my kids?
If that’s also you, then I wholeheartedly recommend this book to you. My answer to those questions is now an emphatic YES, and I’m actually motivated and excited to study his plays with my children. Very fascinating read, on a subject that I had never heard about before.
If that’s also you, then I wholeheartedly recommend this book to you. My answer to those questions is now an emphatic YES, and I’m actually motivated and excited to study his plays with my children. Very fascinating read, on a subject that I had never heard about before.
March 1, 2020
Fascinating book looking at the life and spiritual beliefs of Shakespeare . The core of the book is the relationship that Shakespeare may, or may not, have had with Catholicism. A most interesting picture of the Elizabethan reign and mores .
December 18, 2021
By the time your done it seems blatantly obvious Shakespeare was catholic
Headline says it all. Joseph Pearce quotes from secular scholars both for and against the idea to guide the reader to a place where it is simply obvious that Shakespeare was catholic.
Headline says it all. Joseph Pearce quotes from secular scholars both for and against the idea to guide the reader to a place where it is simply obvious that Shakespeare was catholic.
February 24, 2023
Concise, compelling, and convincing. So many of the things that seem to befuddle historians about Shakespeare’s life are perfectly answered here. I really respect Joseph Pearce as a writer and a thinker, and I loved reading this.
March 10, 2019
Joseph Pearce is a magnificent writer and I completely enjoyed this read.
July 12, 2020
The Elizabethan period was a fascinating time in terms of religion and politics and it's interesting to read anything that might shed light on Shakespeare's viewpoints.
January 8, 2024
Interesting info about the confirmed Catholics around Shakespeare before, during, and after his life.
I’m not buying the secret Catholic references in his plays though.
I’m not buying the secret Catholic references in his plays though.
April 21, 2025
This book rekindled my childhood love for history and the mystery that it can be.
June 8, 2023
Shakespeare has a tendency to be "all things to all people" in the English literary canon. Every school of thought tries to adopt him for their own, whether the staunch defenders of English Protestantism or the blasé atheist-materialists of today. Meticulously revisiting the known facts of Shakespeare's life, Pearce assembles a strong case (circumstantial, of course, but the best to be hoped for 500 years on) indicating that the worldview that forged his genius was that of a recusant Catholic, tested in the fires of Bloody Bess's persecutions.
Pearce includes two appendices: one on the critical implications of Shakespeare's Catholicism, the other an in-depth look at King Lear through that lens. These are very interesting, and a good jumping-off point for the reader to begin viewing the Shakespearean canon through new eyes. They are, however, not the only times Pearce digresses into literary criticism. At times, he attempts to build upon the historical evidence by speculating about the meaning of certain passages. While those passages, interpreted through the lens of Catholicism, become significant, that is the same tactic used by other critics seeking to fit the Bard into their own philosophical box. The evidence speaks for itself, and the book is strongest when discussing the historical record. No need to borrow strategies from those who have nothing but their own pretensions with which to defend their pet theories.
Pearce includes two appendices: one on the critical implications of Shakespeare's Catholicism, the other an in-depth look at King Lear through that lens. These are very interesting, and a good jumping-off point for the reader to begin viewing the Shakespearean canon through new eyes. They are, however, not the only times Pearce digresses into literary criticism. At times, he attempts to build upon the historical evidence by speculating about the meaning of certain passages. While those passages, interpreted through the lens of Catholicism, become significant, that is the same tactic used by other critics seeking to fit the Bard into their own philosophical box. The evidence speaks for itself, and the book is strongest when discussing the historical record. No need to borrow strategies from those who have nothing but their own pretensions with which to defend their pet theories.
July 13, 2012
I often think that it's a fool's errand to try to piece together a comprehensive look at an historical figure's life based on a few scraps of official record. That said, Pearce does a good job, and extensively documents his sourcework, in this attempt to color the Bard as a recusant Catholic during the reigns of Elizabeth and James I. His arguments ring true, although there are times when it has the feel of a History Channel "Documentary" where the history of ancient civilizations and alien influence is shown by repeated shots of ancient, sandaled feet shuffling through dust.
If nothing else, I am convinced by this that the "proof" of Shakespeare's homosexuality is more suspect than my lit teachers in college led me to believe. Don't get me wrong, my enjoyment of his works isn't dependent on his religion or sexual orientation. The work really highlighted for me that I need not trouble myself overmuch with agenda-ridden subtext. But if I choose to, there's as solid an argument for examining his Catholicism as any other aspect of his life.
If nothing else, I am convinced by this that the "proof" of Shakespeare's homosexuality is more suspect than my lit teachers in college led me to believe. Don't get me wrong, my enjoyment of his works isn't dependent on his religion or sexual orientation. The work really highlighted for me that I need not trouble myself overmuch with agenda-ridden subtext. But if I choose to, there's as solid an argument for examining his Catholicism as any other aspect of his life.
October 15, 2014
I won this book from The Coming Home Network. I was happy to get it as a lover of the Catholic Church and of Shakespeare's plays. The author is convinced that Shakespeare was a Catholic. "And so we come to the conclusion of our quest, discovering that Shakespeare had died as he had lived, as a resolute Catholic. And we can say with confidence that if this cannot be proved with mathematical certainty, it can at least be considered to be proven beyond all reasonable doubt (p. 172)." The evidence is more from Shakespeare's life than from his plays. But the author wrote a second book that focuses on the plays. Two appendices are in this book that give us a preview. Appendix B is an essay on King Lear "... to illustrate how one of Shakespeare's greatest plays comes to life in the light of the Catholic life of the playwright (p. 173)." The essay is my favorite part of this book. It made me wish I had won the second book.
June 16, 2012
Before the generation of Shakespeare’s father, everyone was Catholic. Then, thanks to Henry VIII and Elizabeth I, everyone became Catholick (at least in publick). Then again later, Cromwell scared everyone into becoming Roundheads, with some crypto-Catholics and crypto-Catholicks lurking about, until everyone settled on the via media that persists in Blighty to this day.
What does all this mean for the Bard? Well, he lived smack dab in the middle of the transition from Catholic England to Anglican/Protestant England. Lots of folks of his era broke one way, and others broke t’other. Some, including Shakespeare, wrote plays to divert people from debating the Real Presence. My full review is available here.
What does all this mean for the Bard? Well, he lived smack dab in the middle of the transition from Catholic England to Anglican/Protestant England. Lots of folks of his era broke one way, and others broke t’other. Some, including Shakespeare, wrote plays to divert people from debating the Real Presence. My full review is available here.
February 18, 2014
Since we know so little about the life of the Bard, this book gives us good evidence for the hidden Catholicism of Shakespeare. His upbringing in a devout Catholic home, his association with avowed recusants in the time of great peril for Catholics under Elizabeth I and James I (some of those recusants being publicly drawn and quartered) and his purchase of a house in London which was a center for secret Old Faith gatherings are just a few of the intriguing associations Pearce gives us. Pearce also shows us these influences in Shakespeare's dramas. Largely, Shakespeare's life is a blank slate for biographers. Here, the author fills that slate with substantial evidence for his narrative.
May 3, 2016
Very interesting book about the evidence of Shakespeare being raised, living as, and dying a Catholic. More of a review than new scholarship, but does an excellent job of presenting the secondary and tertiary sources in a coherent and balanced fashion. I am thoroughly convinced Shakespeare was born, lived, and died a Catholic. I think that his devoutness can be inferred from his historical time - if you didn't actually care/believe you would just get on with being Anglican the fact that he didn't is quite convincing that he wasn't agnostic. Mr Pearce dispels the arguments of modernism, atheist, and Puritan well. Engaging writing style and deft arguments.
March 7, 2009
A well written book. There are many quotable lines in this book, two of which have become my favorite: "She has sought to steer my robust Muse in the direction of Chestertoinian charity and away from Bellocian bellicosity but oft times in vain" and "missing the point and impaling themselves on the point of their own pointlessness." I learned much about the atmosphere surrounding the life of this poet. An awakening glance at the troubled times when Catholics were hounded by the State. I have no real interest in Shakespeare, but this book is worth the read.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 38 reviews