Shadowplay: The Hidden Beliefs and Coded Politics of William Shakespeare

by Clare Asquith

In 16th century England many loyal subjects to the crown were asked to make a terrible to follow their monarch or their God. The era was one of unprecedented England, it seemed, had become a police state, fearful of threats from abroad and plotters at home. This age of terror was also the era of the greatest creative genius the world has ever William Shakespeare. How, then, could such a remarkable man born into such violently volatile times apparently make no comment about the state of England in his work? He did. But it was hidden. Revealing Shakespeare's sophisticated version of a forgotten code developed by 16th-century dissidents, Clare Asquith shows how he was both a genius for all time and utterly a creature of his own a writer who was supported by dissident Catholic aristocrats, who agonized about the fate of England's spiritual and political life and who used the stage to attack and expose a regime which he believed had seized illegal control of the country he loved. Shakespeare's plays offer an acute insight into the politics and personalities of his era. And Clare Asquith's decoding of them offers answers to several mysteries surrounding Shakespeare's own life, including most notably why he stopped writing while still at the height of his powers. An utterly compelling combination of literary detection and political revelation, Shadowplay is the definitive expose of how Shakespeare lived through and understood the agonies of his time, and what he had to say about them.

Genres: History, Shakespeare, Nonfiction, Literary Criticism, Religion, Politics, Biography

368 pages, Hardcover

First published April 20, 2005

About the author

Clare Asquith, Countess of Oxford and Asquith (born 2 June 1951) is a scholar and the author of Shadowplay: The Hidden Beliefs and Coded Politics of William Shakespeare, which posits that Shakespeare was a recusant Catholic whose works contain code which was used by the Catholic underground, particularly the Jesuits, in Reformation England, but also appealed to the monarchy in a plea for toleration. Asquith's book was the first to note the existence of the code as a subtext in Shakespeare. The work was hailed by many, including Catholic writer Piers Paul Read as "dramatic, important" and demonstrating "painstaking scholarship."

She has lectured on Shakespeare in both the UK and North America. Her ideas about sixteenth-century code were first raised while observing coded messages in Russian dissident plays while her husband served as a diplomat in Moscow during the cold war and were first published in The Shakespeare Newsletter and The Times Literary Supplement.

Asquith was born Mary Clare Pollen, eldest daughter of Anthony Baring Pollen (1926-1987) and Marie Therese Sheridan (later Viscountess Sidmouth, wife of the 7th peer). She lives in Somerset, England with her husband, former diplomat Raymond Asquith, Viscount Asquith (whom she married in 1978) and their five children.

Reviews

[Al Bità · Rating 5 out of 5]

Shakespeare has been with us for some 400 years, and his reputation as perhaps the greatest playwright globally is unmatched, so much so that the wit, intelligence, humanism and universality of his works has given them an aura of unmatched superhuman genius that continues to astonish us today. As result, the person who wrote these plays, about whom there is little historical information, has become glorified to the point of idolatry, so much so that we have theories spouting about that wish to raise the perception of his rather low-brow origins to levels of sophistication and intelligence that might only be attainable by someone of a higher class of society… a pointless exercise, as it turns out to be, since it merely pushes a kind of snobbery on the part of those thus theorising, which does nothing to illuminate the astonishing brilliance of his greatest plays.

Now along comes Clare Asquith with a remarkably erudite study of an aspect of the plays which, as far as I am aware, has never been taught before. It transforms Shakespeare from some kind of freak of nature who floated above the ordinary like some divine poetic luminary into someone who is part and parcel of his own times, in ways that are not only illuminating, but in fact revelatory of Shakespeare as someone intensely involved with the England of his times. Asquith's uncovering of Shakespeare's consistent use of coded words throughout his plays reveal him to be a supporter of the out-of-favour Catholics in England, who wanted a restoration of the glories of the Roman religion that had been so devastatingly removed and destroyed by the rising power of the Calvinist Protestants. Thus the plays can be interpreted as containing 'shadowplays' as a means to communicate with and provide succour to his Catholic supporters, while at the same time keeping any outright opposition at bay, and encouraging Queen Elizabeth to adopt a more lenient approach towards the Catholic cause. The great divide in England between the Catholics and the Protestants was exacerbated by the intensity of the power struggle between England and Rome, with intense spying and bloody reprisals for previous wrongs. Shakespeare would have to be very astute in his subtle preferences by balancing his affections neatly, if complexly, in his writings.

With the death of Elizabeth and the accession of James of Scotland, the later plays turn their attention first to influencing James, then, as his rule became more intolerant, especially after the dastardly Gunpowder Plot which shocked both Catholics and Protestants alike, directed towards the hoped-for heir apparent Harry as the possible provider of future relief for the besieged Catholics in England.

Asquith's revelations and her analyses of the plays and other works by Shakespeare not only root him firmly within his times, but also provides us with a vivid portrait of the politics of the times, not often presented in the study of his plays. They throw much light on the political realities of Elizabethan and Jacobean England within which Shakespeare was constrained to work. It is suggested that this fine balancing act, together with his undoubted poetic and literary qualities, both combined to provide the world with plays which see humanistic values espoused through opposing ideologies, and which in the end call for acceptance, tolerance and ultimately forgiveness. Thus, ironically, the individual historical settings of the plays as well as the actual socio-political realities are transcended, and the subsequent soaring universal values encapsulated in the great speeches and soliloquies so admired in Shakespeare's work, are set free.

In a way, this book can be compared to architecture — it reveals the scaffolding and support structures used to make miraculously high arched edifices and marvellous vaulting which, after the support work is removed, astonish us with their existence and mystify us with the magic of how they hold together. It is a must-read for anyone interested in Shakespeare.

[Brian · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Shadowplay" is a surprisingly quick read if one has an interest in the material. Clare Asquith has written a book that explores Shakespeare's Catholic politics (her thesis) and then proceeds to interweave a chronological analysis of these beliefs as presented in code in his plays. This she intermixes with what is happening in historical England at the time. The result is intriguing to say the least. Whether or not it is true is another matter.
First off, I strongly feel that this book is not worth your time if you have not read most of Shakespeare's work, including the narrative poems. There are too many very detailed references to his plays, plus numerous spoilers of some of his lesser known works. I would imagine that if you had not read the play that Ms. Asquith was referencing the text would be hard to follow. The book is also written in an academic style and I believe it would not be enjoyable for someone who is a casual Shakespeare fan. Historical knowledge of the period is also a major plus. When I was unfamiliar with the Shakespeare text she was examining I could usually follow the historical references she was connecting to the play.
Ms. Asquith makes compelling arguments for her thesis, but sometimes she assumes too much for me to go along. I first noticed this in the section of the book called "By My Two Faiths" where too many leaps are taken without any proof rendered. I also could not go along with Asquith's contention that the character of Hamlet was a surrogate for Sir Philip Sidney. It is an idea she does not adequately provide evidence for and I thought it a bit much. However, her weakest leap of faith is her conspiracy theory about Shakespeare's play "Henry VIII". Again, no evidence is given other than conjecture, thus her assumptions are unconvincing. Her thoughts on this play are the stuff of movies, and do her considerable book and her obvious intellect a disservice.
Still, there are moments in the text where Asquith's ideas seem the only plausible explanation. This is especially notable in her section on Shakespeare's sonnets. Her study and interpretation of them give many of these pieces a sense and lucidity that they never held for me before I read her ideas about them. Also compelling is her argument for "Twelfth Night" as a coded work. Her connection between the plot and action of the play and historical context are very well done. It is hard to not be convinced by Ms. Asquith when she renders support for her ideas.
I won't speak to the validity of the premise of "Shadowplay". Arguments for and against Asquith's theories have ample support. But one thing I will say is that I do not feel that "Shadowplay" is a text to be taken lightly, and I certainly don't see it as a disservice to the study of Shakespeare. Your appreciation of the Bard will be enhanced by this text, whether you agree with Ms. Asquith or not. I still don't know how I feel about her ideas, I am inclined to disagree with them, but I am glad that I read this book.

[Denis · Rating 2 out of 5]

A potentially interesting revisionist take on Shakespeare, and there are places where Asquith's interpretation of the plays seems compelling. Unfortunately, the interesting elements are swamped by the way that Asquith attempts to shoehorn everything into a simplistic historical framework in which the Reformation was unambiguously negative. She tries too hard to paint all Catholics as the good guys and all Protestants as the bad guys, and she presents Shakespeare and all of his work as being solely motivated by a desire to defend Catholicism. Rather than accept a more limited hypothesis based on only the elements of Shakespeare's work that can be convincingly reinterpreted in terms of Elizabethan politics, she hurts her credibility by stretching the material in order to present every single element of every play as a coded political message. This is a prime example of the danger of a researcher who decides on the conclusion in advance and then only does research to support what she wants to believe.

[Christine · Rating 2 out of 5]

I'm trying to figure out my reaction to this book because I think Asquith might be on to something, I just don't think she does a good job of proving it. In some ways, it reminds me of the fact that we always want Shakespeare to be of us - be that gay, straight, Elizabeth's right hand, radical, good husband.

I think there is something to be said for plays being political. Even in something like a comedy. It is possible, in fact, highly possible that Shakespeare's family was Catholic.

Asquith, however, needs to be clearer. (1) I wished she had really shown how the coded Catholic language was used, in something more established than Shakespeare. She simply said it was there, and it was proably was, but I need more that. Otherwise, it just looks like her decision what the symbols (2) if it is her choice of what the symbols mean then I can chose something different (3) if Richard III was as political as she seems to think, I find it hard to believe that Shakespeare kept his head (4) She can't seem to deicide if Shakespeare liked the Puritians or didn't (5)I'm not convinced that Hamlet is Sidney, sorry. I also think any dicussion about Hamlet without reference to the soap opera of Mary, Queen of Scots is somewhat short sighted (6) Rumor is not fact (7) If Shakespeare saw close friends hounded because they were Catholic, how come Asquith can't tell us thier names (8) Mary Queen of Scots didn't get her head chopped off simply because she was Catholic (9) I'm really not sure how many priests got married under Edward so I'm not convinced of rebellion (10) Apparently all the problem plays are Catholic codes (12) the whole John Shakespeare Catholic confession thing leaves a few key details out

I could keep going, but I won't it. It's an intersting and intriguing idea, and entirely possible. I just wish Asquith had taken more time to make sure the reader could follow her as well as developed the arguements instead of simply doing a symbolism checklist for each play.

[Simon · Rating 2 out of 5]

It's an interesting book, but she certainly doesn't accomplish her overarching goal, which is to convince the reader that Shakespeare was a closet Catholic. Asquith's main problem is that the term "Catholic" is just too fluid for this period to mean only someone secretly loyal to the Church of Rome. There is certainly plenty of evidence within the plays that Shakespeare knew a great deal about Catholicism as it had been practiced in England before the Reformation. But the Elizabethan Settlement, in place by his birthdate, restored the Church of England to something vaguely High Church in its practices.

In addition, there is ample evidence that Catholic piety, as opposed to institutional structure, survived long after the 1530s. This means that a bright young man, interested in the world around him, could have picked up all sorts of information without necessarily believing in Roman Catholicism itself. In the end, Asquith's agenda has more to do with the current state of Roman Catholicism than with England in the 16th and early 17th century. The book is beautifully written, and she does offer real insights into several of the plays, so on that basis I would certainly recommend it for Shakespeareans.

[Paul · Rating 5 out of 5]

Shakespeare can be tough to decipher at the best of times and now there’s another layer of complexity to think about.

Fortunately, code-breaking author Clare Asquith is an excellent interpreter and fashions a page-turning thriller from a tangled web of period politics.

Why did the Bard quit writing and return to Stratford at the height of his powers? Is it credible to think that the greatest playwright of the age would have nothing to say about the turbulent times in which he lived? What did Shakespeare believe in and to whom did his sympathies lie?

The answers to these questions don’t come easy. The concealed messages and ambiguities have eluded scholars for more than 400 years and modern day academic skeptics abound.

It’s the breadth and depth of Asquith’s research in support of her conclusions that make the book so compelling. Little is known about the man, but her painstaking and rigorous inquiries give great insight into neglected areas of an already well documented era.

Shakespeare was living in a virtual police state, an England where political beliefs weren’t just cerebral debating points: Where you stood on an issue, what you said and what you did had consequences – and the wrong answers could cost you dear.

Was your ultimate allegiance to the church or state, monarch or to God? Were you Catholic or Protestant, Jesuit or Puritan? Where did you go? Who did you see? What did you do? Where did your loyalties lie?

Walsingham’s spy network was constantly on alert for plots from abroad and dissidence from within. An allegation, a rumour, a betrayal, any whiff of insurrection could lead to dispossession, torture and a grisly execution.

It’s within this context that Asquith unravels the coded messages that have become more opaque through the passage of time.

Few of Shakespeare’s contemporaries are read today and, as she explains, the sophisticated elite then were better versed in the classics than many modern theatregoers; they were attuned to allegories, allusions and hidden meanings.

One court dramatist described his play as a Trojan horse: an elaborate gift concealing an unpalatable message.
The subversive genius of Shakespeare was to get his message through to a Catholic audience while concealing the true meaning from the rest.

This was a dangerous tightrope to be on and one he walked for many years until, it seems, he had a major fall from grace.

[Chloe Lee · Rating 3 out of 5]

Asquith's book is very well-researched, and initially it is a very original and enjoyable read.

However, by applying the same formula to the whole canon of Shakespeare's works not only reduces the beauty of it, but also her argument becomes very repetitive (even before she reaches the more famous plays like Henry V or the great tragedies).

By scrutinising everything into such formulaic detail a potentially great piece of research can fall into a pit which is manifested through the youtube video below (first minute, not the whole video)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObiqJ...

(Own suggestion only, and I am very much biased because Shakespeare, nationalism and politics is exactly what I am working on for my dissertation)

Would also recommend Denis' review over here: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

[Jimmy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fascinating look at both Shakespeare's works and the era he worked in, showing the Catholic influence running all through his plays, poems, and sonnets. However, it appears that the author's religious views may have been corrupted by Vatican II; for example, she refers to giving "equal dignity to the finest elements in both Lutheranism and the old faith", without explaining how a heretical system condemned by the Church can possibly have any "finest elements". She also refers to "persecutions" of Puritans under the reign of Mary.

[Ed · Rating 2 out of 5]

I did enjoy reading this book...but methinks the lady doth protest too much. A lot of points she raises get one thinking...why the many Catholic allusions in plays written in non-Catholic England (although Catholicism was a living memory for many, and would return soon enough)? And what of papa Shakespeare's testament? Read it and see what you think.

[Ian · Rating 1 out of 5]

Its the Divinci Code of Shakespeare studies!
And it comes across as fiction as well

[Joseph Campagnolo · Rating 5 out of 5]

Many more popular books of Shakespearean speculation are vapid in comparison with Clare Asquith's. Although you will probably find this book uninteresting if you have never formulated a Shakespearean question and sought its answer, it provides the person who finds hundreds of mysteries in Shakespeare's life and works some very compelling explanations to the majority of the longer poems and plays. Her overarching contention is that Shakespeare's ingenuity in composing his plays and poems was concentrated largely on stating the Catholic position on the social, religious and political affairs of the day. What she argues with respect to the Twelfth Night, Troilus and Cressida and The Phoenix and the Turtle, I find most satisfying. About Sonnet 152, while her explanation is clever and sensible, in light of the entire body of sonnets, I cannot agree that it is about a Catholic Englishman's moral quandary, trying to remain loyal to the Old Faith while accommodating the King's demand for allegiance. In my opinion virtually all the Sonnets are what most people have concluded they are: the coherent story of friendships, adulteries, competition for favors, jealousies, betrayals and so forth. To me the Sonnets are entirely an intimate set of poems about personal relationships, meant for limited circulation and never for publication. The position of Sonnet 152 as the final "quality" sonnet-- as 153 and 154 seem like cheap throw-offs slapped onto the end -- I do find intriguing. It may actually be the last chronologically and date to 1609, but my sense if that it dates to at least 5 or 6 years earlier. Clare Asquith's book also contains a Glossary of Coded Terms which I find a good read in itself.

[Stephen Selbst · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book is a tendentious peroration disguised as literary analysis. Claire Asquith's thesis is that Shakespeare was a recusant Catholic in the early days of the English Reformation and that his plays are coded appeals to reverse the harms inflicted on English Catholics in that era.

Other scholars have speculated on whether Shakespeare was a recusant Catholic and some have noted references to Catholic liturgy and practice in his plays. But nobody else has drawn the conclusions Asquith has, and the book has been criticized as being long on passion but not ultimately persuasive. One problem with Asquith's thesis is that there remains zero proof that Shakespeare was Catholic. More importantly, her arguments simply lack textual proof in the plays. One either accepts her theses or not; despite her attempts to read the plays closely, the evidence is thin. Telling to me are the many times she writes "it could have been" or Shakespeare "must have known". Speculation does not make for scholarship.

A second problem is Asquith's tone. Her palpably aggrieved history of the Reformation is so acute that she reminds me of Southerners trying to present the US Civil War as the glorious lost cause. My point is that her bias is so manifest that it severely undercuts her credibility.

This was recommended to me as a serious piece of Shakespeare scholarship, which it is not. It's about as serious as an anti-Stratfordian rant. Read it only if you're obsessive about Shakespeare and want to be wryly amused.

[Peter Herrmann · Rating 4 out of 5]

Am still reading. Actually, now just skimming. Not being intimately familiar with the plays (yes, I studied them in high school & college, and read a few later, as well as saw a few performances - but that's a far cry from being very familiar with), I found this book a bit too academic and erudite for me to stay interested. The thesis is fascinating. I must take on faith some of her arguments (re his plays being covertly seditious); which seem persuasive at times. However, I'd need to see a rebuttal to be able to judge their worth; and I'm very surprised that none of this thesis was taught to me in school, or even known (?) until very recently (via her book, and perhaps other similar books?). But, she really gets down into the weeds; the specifics that she cites are numerous, numerous, numerous ... with all sorts of historical references about personages and events of that era. So, for research and info I give the book 5-stars; for sustaining my interest only 3-stars (granted, it's my problem, not hers), so average = 4-stars.

[Margaret Conmey · Rating 4 out of 5]

The first Shakespeare play I studied at school aged 11 was The Merchant of Venice and I thought even then that the original viewers of the play would be thinking about the religious persecution at the time, especially against Roman Catholics
Reading other plays eg Julius Caesar it was also apparent that they contained catholic theology
Although I agree with other reviews that say the author laboured the point and tried a little too hard to make almost every play fit her theory, it was a very interesting book
It explains aspects of the plays that don’t make sense unless seen through the perspective of the times they were written
I agree that this version of history has been airbrushed out of the history of England

[Dar Nothaft · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent analysis of Shakespeare with an alternate theory of analysis not able to be found elsewhere. While I am not sure about the full attempted hypothesis, the underlying idea that an artist like Shakespeare would clearly find inspiration in the injustices of his era, and that the state of affairs of Tudor England included a vast majority of the country still seeking spiritual solace from their exile from Catholic ritual, rings true.

[Amanda Witt · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very detailed book, describing how Shakespeare wrote his plays in such a way that the audience of the day would have understood the meanings, codes, but have been lost over time and with religion not such a stronghold.

[Maureen · Rating 5 out of 5]

very original and convincing.

[S.R. Clark · Rating 5 out of 5]

For a lifelong Shakespeare fan like me, this is a life-changing book. Get ready to re-read all your favorite plays by the Bard in light of Clare Asquith's amazing scholarly detective work!

[Marilyn]

09 Mar 2025 Aunt Jean Sanders recommended

[Mark Valentine · Rating 5 out of 5]

I have immense gratitude for Clare Asquith for deepening my appreciation and understanding of Shakespeare. I hope her study gains a wider audience.

She writes as a New Historicist; that is, as a literary critic who specializes in the historical era around the text. She has illuminated the age in which Shakespeare wrote and provided play-by-play quotations tagging how the playwright was very, very contemporary. Like a visual hologram, she combines the naturalism that Shakespeare used in creating characters that plumb the depths of human psychology and understanding with "deep engagement in the thought, language and imagery of Christian humanism" only to graft these two into a third--"political allegories"--coded messages expressing a repressed Catholic view in the midst of a dominant Protestant political culture. "Irrelevant and transitory though some of its material may seem now [think "Pericles," or "Titus Andronicus," or "Coriolanus"], it emerges as the crucible in which the greatest works of English literature were born."

Highly valuable, highly recommended reading!

[Min · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a book full of the intrigues and abuses of Elizabethan England. It is well researched, but I found the murders and tortures described hard to read . The author presents evidence that Shakespeare was probably an underground Catholic. However, she has a puzzling error. On p. 93, she states that the Blessed Virgin Mary's birthday is September 7; the correct date is September 8. The book is well worth reading and I would recommend it.

[Robert Teeter · Rating 1 out of 5]

I read this so you don’t have to. It’s a wild conspiracy theory based not only on the idea that Shakespeare was a secret Catholic (I can believe that much), but that his plays are nothing but coded messages concealing his religious and political beliefs. We’re supposed to believe that all of his fellow Catholics understood the secret code. We’re also supposed to believe that some of the plays are pleas directed at Queen Elizabeth and King James. All of these people were in on the secret, and yet Shakespeare never got in trouble for his many subversive plays!

Mrs. Asquith builds her scaffold of nonsense on a foundation of assertions without proof (such and such “must have been” the case, she so often says) and faulty logic.

[Nathan · Rating 3 out of 5]

Readers of Shakespeare have noted for centuries his lack of political dissent. Asquith examines phrases and quotes from many plays to show us that there is a genuine critique of the political culture of Elizabethan England in Shakespeare’s work. Shadowplay sorts it out and gives a modern interpretation of Shakespeare’s political concerns. Fascinating and informative, Asquith’s text brings new life to Shakespeare’s. The beauty of a book like this is that there's no way to determine with 100% accuracy what Shakespeare was thinking when he wrote his influential works. It's fun to think about, though, and this book is a strong exercise in that.

NC

[Monica · Rating 3 out of 5]

I found this really difficult to get into and there were times I felt the argument wasn't being given convincingly. But, I think I only felt that because I don't know Shakespeare's works as well as I should so it was hard work to keep up. There is a MASSIVE amount of information in this book and it's all relevant. CA could probably write a book this size about each and every play and still not tell us all she knows. It a really fascinating subject and where I know the plays better I loved this.
If you a looking for an easier read on the same lines go for 'The Day Shakespeare Died' by Hugh Ross Williamsom.

[Mason · Rating 4 out of 5]

Asquith makes a convincing case that the English Reformation was a major, yet hidden, subtext underlying most of Shakespeare's works. Many other reviews I've seen from professional scholars and critics "mansplain" why her less-believable theories, such as Shakespeare concocting an elaborate code to speak about the day's politics to fellow Catholic sympathizers, can't be true. I'm also suspicious when someone imputes an author's beliefs or actions from their text, and Asquith does lean pretty far in that direction at times. Still, she marshals far too much evidence to be summarily dismissed. A fascinating and fun read for serious fans of W.S.

[Christopher · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was a profoundly interesting book that I, frankly, found hard to read. The premise of the work is compelling and the author provides a mountain of evidence to support her thesis, and her research is groundbreaking. And for this reason alone I recommend the book. After reading this, you will never look at Shakespeare or his writings the same way.

However, those with only a passing acquaintance of the Bard will find Asquith a bit rough plodding, especially towards the end. There is a lot of thick, Elizabethan detail here which could overwhelm someone with a casual interest.

[Kathy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Asquith is determined to convince me that Shakespeare was a recusant Catholic and that every one of his plays, indeed nearly every passage and character, is a secret coded message to his fellow believers in the time of Tudor and then Stuart persecution. I don't buy it. Her research and scholarship seem - not that I'm a Shakespeare scholar - quite thorough, and she certainly has put much intelligent and appreciative thought into this work. Her writing is crisp and clear, and the historical background conveys a vivid notion of Shakespeare's milieu. It's just that the lady doth assume too much.

[C. Michael · Rating 5 out of 5]

May be dismissed by those unable or unwilling to accept Shakespeare's spirituality. May be thought an exaggeration in places even by those who are willing to see him as a recusant Catholic, or even just someone partly in sympathy with the recusants. But can be compelling reading for those who are willing to reconsider the role his faith played in the writing and presentation of Shakespeare's works, and especially their role as religious commentary directed at Queen Elizabeth, King James, and Shakespeare's other contemporaries.

[Robderemigio · Rating 4 out of 5]

It made me think and re-think many of my previous impressions about Shakespeare's life and work. A consistantly fascinating and well written thesis that would be a great read for any level of Shakespeare study. Even if you never read a play, but are into conspiracy theories throughout history, this is a great book to read.

[Emily Giuffre · Rating 4 out of 5]

A thought provoking read on the double, triple and sometimes quadruple entendre's of Shakespeare's plays and life. As a public figure, during a tumultuous time of political and religious strife, Shakespeare's plays give an interesting insight into his views, which may not have been as "politically-correct" as people think they were.