Shakespearean Themes
Citizens, Saints, and Heroes
“Thus should one regard us: as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God.”
– St. Paul of Tarsus
Play within a Play
Shakespeare hits on various themes repeatedly throughout his career. And among the greatest hints of the two levels to his stories – the literal and the spiritual – is in how Shakespeare revisits the theme of the “play within a play” throughout his canon. The “play within a play” highlights things to consider not only when there is an overt “play within a play,” like in Hamlet and Taming the Shrew, but in every play. Those principles give us hints to apply across all of Shakespeare’s canon.
In Hamlet, Hamlet openly plans “the play’s the thing wherein I’ll catch the conscience of the king.” The “play within a play” is central to Hamlet’s discovery of truth. And he enlists Horatio to note the king’s reaction to the play he has staged, recognizing the power of story to move people and evoke emotion. Hamlet is gathering insight on whether what the ghost said was true, and as the play unfolds, we see Hamlet uncovering the evil plot and making amends for the fallen kingdom. Very literally, the “play within the play” was to uncover something about the king – to prick his conscience and hopefully get the true story.
Likewise, in MidSummer Night’s Dream, an early play where Shakespeare reveals the artistic heights he has become known for, there is the hilarious almost-side story of the Queen of the Fairies (Queen Elizabeth’s nickname). The Queen of the Fairies falls in love with an actor playing an ass. Shakespeare, as an actor, weaves in funny insights of the hilarious difficulties and opportunities when acting before royalty. In the play, “rude mechanicals” are preparing to stage a play as entertainment celebrating the royal wedding. No doubt something Shakespeare was learning, as this might have been the first play his acting troupe performed in the queen’s presence. The whole play masterfully tackles deeper themes like forbidden love, true loyalty, unjust laws, and so on, but the play within a play is a hilarious side story that offers tremendous comedy for the audience. A little levity to the harsh reality of Elizabethan England. And certainly, the play offers autobiographical details hidden within the fictional characters. A case of useful fiction being more empowering than forgotten facts, as Shakespeare finds a way through his stories to hilariously memorialize important themes like life, liberty and love, themes so central to the human experience, themes so central to Judeo-Christian religion, and themes so crucial to the formation of our country.
In Taming of the Shrew, an early comedy, Shakespeare has an induction (that is, a lead-in) that sets the stage for that play. The play starts off with the curious character of Christopher Sly. Note the name, Christopher is ‘Christ-bearer’ and sly indicates a deceitful nature, so a Sly Christ-Bearer. Christopher Sly is a drunkard who has a prank pulled on him, he wakes up from a drunken stupor and is treated like a nobleman. Hilariously, everyone around him is to treat him like he’s the lord of the manor who has finally woken up from a 15-year stupor, a noble lord who is restored to health. By the way, 15 years prior was roughly the time severe Catholic persecution began again, and Catholics faced serious fines imposed and possible imprisonment for not joining the State church. Very literally, the wealth of Catholic families was being taken and distributed to religious opportunists. And on Christopher Sly’s first day awake from his stupor, he’s asked to watch a play, a comedy, to help his healing. For as the messenger notes,
Your honor’s players, hearing your amendment,
Are to play a pleasant comedy;
For so your doctors hold it very meet,
Seeing too much sadness hath congealed your blood,
And melancholy is the nurse of frenzy,
Therefor they thought it good you hear a play,
And frame your mind to mirth and merriment,
Which bars a thousand harms, and lengthens life.”
And what’s the play? It is “a kind of history.” But what kind of history is this? The whole play revolves around taming a shrew, or taming a bitch, to use modern-day terms. How is a play about a man wooing a woman a kind of history? What are we to make of this? How is it history to play a prank and pretend a drunk is a nobleman? And how is it history to watch sisters wooed and wed? Even more so, what would compel a writer to revisit this theme, the “play within a play,” throughout his canon? Answers to these questions are critical for not only Catholics, but also critical for Americans to understand.
The “play within a play” is a sign for the audience to pay attention. Even though the other plays might not have overt “plays within a play” in them, all of them had a purpose. Every one of Shakespeare’s plays was “a kind of history.” Shakespeare was helping fellow countrymen to remember history and understand current events. Each play drives to a higher purpose, and each play chronicles in a unique way a different take on the English reformation.
As Americans, sometimes we don’t realize how much English history shaped our own. The privilege we have as Americans, compared to the rest of the world, is that Englishmen suffered totalitarian kings and queens hundreds of years ago, and they embedded the lessons learned into their socio-political institutions. Institutions we inherited at our birth as colonies, and institutions we improved upon in our independence. Our English forefathers suffered totalitarian rulers and worked to ensure future generations were freed from government shackles and violation of our God-given rights. Our American forefathers began the process of protecting those individual rights and ideals framed in our Declaration of Independence and protected in our Constitution. What Shakespeare did was to keep those stories fresh and those ideals alive when he wrote them into his plays. He recorded what the tyrants did, and in doing so, helped future generations of Catholics and Americans be smart to the snares of the devil and the evil of tyrants. Again, the privilege Americans have is that our forefathers suffered and figured out a way to alleviate the suffering for future generations. They set in place ideals to strive for and rights to protect for every citizen. Shakespeare’s stories help us never forget the deep suffering that forged such beautiful ideals and protective measures.
In this section, Shakespearean Themes, we will cover a few of the key themes Shakespeare revisited throughout his canon. We will continue to go down the path of uncovering the spiritual side of his stories, seeking to understand the why these themes are found throughout Shakespeare, how these themes memorialize English history, and why these themes are important to both Catholics and Americans today.
Now, these themes are by no means an exhaustive list. I suppose the books of the world could not contain the depth of Shakespeare, but these few themes are selected as a pattern to uncover others. These few are selected to highlight a kind of history that will never be kept alive in government schools and buildings, but must be kept alive in our stories, our myths, our minds our souls, and our hearts. Let’s continue down the path of understanding Shakespearean themes by focusing on the theme of the bride.
“Where civil blood makes civil hands unclean,
From forth the fatal loins of these two foes
A pair of star-crossed lovers take their life;
Whose misadventured piteous overthrows
Doth with their death bury their parents’ strife.”
– Romeo & Juliet
Slandered and Spotless
The theme of the bride was not simply a theme of Shakespeare, it’s the theme of humanity. Mankind’s first and oldest stories deal with man and wife, Adam and Eve. Other cultures like the Greeks and Romans have epics which revolve on key moments surrounding brides and wives, whether the stealing of Helen by Paris, or the Rape of Lucrece by Tarquin. One led to the fall of Troy, the other to the fall of Roman royalty, both are used as origin stories for the rise of the Roman Empire. Yes, foundational epics of western Europe, and thus western Civilization, all deal with a bride. It’s foundational for families, and it’s foundational for societies, too. Looking to Jewish history, we see the prophets proclaim to the Israelites, “For your husband is your Maker.” And early Christians and saints saw clearly Jesus not only as savior but as spouse. Jesus is the bridegroom, the church his bride.
Throughout the canon Shakespeare deals with brides, wives, and weddings. Almost every time he’s touching on the issue of the separation of Church and State. Each time from a different perspective. This is a very Catholic issue. The separation of Church and State is a key issue that separates apostolic Christians – Catholic and Orthodox – and it separates Catholics from some Protestants, like Anglicans. With the Orthodox, the foundation of the split was when Constantine moved the capital from Rome to Constantinople. The Catholic church affirmed that the Pope remains in Rome and is preeminent as head of the Church, the Servant of the Servants of God. From the Catholic point of view, the Church is separate from the State, and if the State moves its headquarters, it doesn’t mean the Church moves. Ours is a kingdom, but not one of this world. Our savior is king of the universe, not king of an earthly kingdom. His home is in heaven, and the office of Peter in Rome. It doesn’t matter what earthly empires or nations do; the Church is separate from the State.
With Anglicans, their split from the Catholic church came when the English king nationalized a part of the Catholic church. What King Henry VIII did was to take something that didn’t belong to him. It wasn’t his to take. Akin to Paris, he stole someone else’s spouse. Akin to Tarquin, he raped someone else’s bride. And in the end, Henry was made a cuckold as many Catholics sought to be faithful to the true church, the bride of Christ. But the king and his successors mounted a long campaign of tyranny that lasted centuries. Henry was a cruel tyrant who stole someone else’s bride in order to forsake his own. He stole from the church in order to create his own, and thereby gain his long sought-after decree of divorce. The separation of Church and State is one of a separation and balance of powers, and when the King of England couldn’t bend the church to his will, he created a new one. He sought the church’s power. And he created a new church by raping the existing one. When the church wouldn’t let him separate from his wife, he separated from the church and created a State church that would let him forsake his vows to his queen. And let’s consider briefly the societal impacts. Clare Asquith summarizes it well, so let’s hear her insight into what resulted when the State tried to take over the Church.
This was “a socioeconomic upheaval which has been called ‘one of the most revolutionary events in English history’, a transfer of land second only to the Norman Conquest: the dissolution of England’s monasteries and takeover of the church’s estate by Elizabeth I’s father, Henry VIII. The scale and speed of this takeover continues to awe scholars. Between 1536 and 1540, four million acres donated by nobility and laymen over hundreds of years to English religious communities, great and small, were inventoried, claimed, and appropriated by the Crown, the houses dissolved, their occupants pensioned off if the surrender was ‘voluntary’, and punished if it was not. The heist amounted to 16 percent of rural England and included ancient buildings packed with valuable books as well as silver, gold, jewelry, stained glass, sculpture, paintings, lead from the roofs, and metal from bells. Henry needed money, and he was able to drive through this extraordinary measure because two years earlier, in his momentous Act of Supremacy, he had assumed authority over the church in England. From that moment on, England was no longer answerable to Rome. In 1532, the English clergy, outwitted and intimidated by the tactics of the Crown, abdicated their independence to the king in an act known as the Submission of the Clergy – a capitulation described by one scholar as ‘the suicide of ecclesiastical authority.’”
This point is key, the changes happened so fast, that even many of the clergy were swept away and caught up with the newfound religion. Yes, many bishops and priest proved to be faithless towards the old religion. It’s easy to understand why. Those found faithful literally lost their heads. As their heads were sometimes placed atop city gates as an intimidation tactic to discourage other Catholics from remaining faithful to the true church.
On a literal level Henry stole, divided, tortured and killed. On a spiritual level, he also raped. Henry decimated Christ’s bride, his daughter Elizabeth did too. And Shakespeare addresses the actions of English tyrants throughout his canon. Each time Shakespeare gives us a slightly different point of view and nuanced understanding of what transpired. He offers the Catholic testimony as to what transpired in order to help future generations understand “a kind of history” that was whitewashed and forbidden by government censorship laws and State propaganda.
Whether Americans realize it or not, the separation of Church and State is a check on the power of the State. And for Americans, the origins of our understanding of the issue ties back to Catholic religion and English Protestants. Early Anglicans desired to mix Church and State out of selfish gain and greedy desire. An Englishman created his own Protestant church simply to divorce his wife and steal wealth. His bastard daughter continued the family legacy, causing much strife in England. To this day, the queen is the head of the church in England. Shakespeare and his father’s generation suffered deeply, and many of that era began seeking out new worlds to alleviate these problems – whether in the Globe theater or colonies across the sea, Englishmen sought out new worlds to make a better home in faraway places. Shakespeare chronicled these sufferings, pointing each time to the truths of the church to offer love, healing and forgiveness, and finally cast out the devils that had taken control of England. Sadly, the devil took root and it was the good heroes and saints who were instead banished.
The church is the only organized institution with the power to call the State to a higher morality, to recognize a divine authority, the only earthly institution of divine origin and not human origin. The Catholic church is the only institution that survives the rise and fall of empires and nations, that sees the changing times and even when heavily persecuted, still survives. It’s the promise of our savior, “lo, I am with you until the end of the age,” and so while we will suffer, it’s through our greatest sufferings will be most triumphant. Shakespeare’s writings are a powerful testimony to Catholic triumph amidst severe government persecution.
The State forever attempts to destroy the only institution and entity with more power than its own, the church with divine power. As Dr. King noted, there is no power like soul power. The wisdom of our founding fathers was to recognize basic God-given rights, and government’s role is to protect those inalienable rights, including the right to worship God in spirit and truth. The beauty of the First Amendment is that it sets right what had gone wrong in Shakespeare’s time. And it puts the State in its place, not allowing it to create laws that steal from the bride of Christ. The folly of 20th century judges was to prioritize an obscure line from one letter by one of the founding fathers and set it as the view of how to interpret our First Amendment. Rather than the consistent and clear testimony of all who passed the Amendment. Rather than the clear outline of the issue through history, looking back to its origins in English and even European society. Rather than simple logic and clear context. But that is how the devil operates, he takes truths out of context. Shakespeare teaches us to see, hear, remember, and beware, for “even the devil can cite scripture to suit his purpose.”
But “congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” because Congress cannot make laws about Christ’s bride, it’s not the rightful place of government to make laws concerning Christ’s beloved bride. English nobles and lawmakers of Shakespeare’s generation forgot this for the sake of selfish desire and greedy gain, and Shakespeare attempted through his writings to help his countrymen see and understand the issue. And Shakespeare’s stories are a powerful testimony for Americans to understand the issue clearly, and see the roots of our own First Amendment right. The roots of that right aren’t in an obscure letter by the hand of Thomas Jefferson, it’s stamped on the old and new testament letters, it’s written in the history of the church, it’s drawn across the institutions of Europe, and its embedded in the hearts of the church faithful. The role of any good government is to allow a free people to worship God in spirit and truth, not by force and commandment. It’s not the government’s role to take the place of God.
Thinking about Shakespeare, what would you do if you were in his shoes? Imagine you were a gifted poet and playwright. Imagine you were a Catholic in 16th century England. Someone who appreciates the truths of the Christian religion and loves the church Jesus founded. Imagine you were also an up-and-coming actor with great skill with the quill and your name was Will whose destiny was to proclaim England’s Catholic history. You are from a beloved island nation, rising from the ruins of the Roman Empire and becoming a global power, renowned throughout the earth for Christian chivalry and royal virtue. And the church you loved, the church that forged not only nations, but also continents, was attacked. A church united and universal, that crossed seas and centuries, was caught in an onslaught from many angles. The church that existed for over a thousand years, tracing itself back to Christ was decimated and destroyed. Lands confiscated, wealth taken, art destroyed, sacred images and holy places desecrated, and buildings torn apart, laying the “bare-ruined choirs where late the sweet birds sang” exposed to the elements. The poor trampled and their numbers increased. The rich faithful to God banished and exiled while scoundrels secured their wealth like pillagers looting in open season. Drunks became nobles because they were willing to be scoundrels. And your religion was no longer freely practiced or even lawful. The religion of your fathers and ancestors, going back over a thousand years, was no longer tolerated and instead made illegal. Government laws bar you from mass, bar you from your savior, bar you from seeking the divine graces that sustain us on our earthly pilgrimage. Moreover, government laws deprive you of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And government censorship laws are whitewashing this history, never letting the true story be told while instead propaganda, lies, and slander flourishes. The government has outlawed the religion of your ancestors, has silenced the voices of those who are oppressed, and continued to imprison, impoverish and even impale on city gates any Catholic who would openly stand for love, kindness, and truth. What would you do? How would you be faithful to your family, your ancestors, your countrymen, and your church?
Well, if you are Shakespeare, you grab a pen, start writing, and tell your side of the story to the masses denied the mass. And your main theme throughout your canon is the theme of the bride. A spotless bride (Much Ado About Nothing, The Tempest, Titus Andronicus), an innocent woman wrongly accused (Much Ado About Nothing, The Winter’s Tale, Cymbeline), a woman denied her true love by tyrannical fathers (MidSummer Night’s Dream, Two Gentlemen of Verona), harsh laws forbidding love (Lover’s Labor’s Lost, Measure for Measure), forsworn lovers (Love’s Labor’s Lost), and a woman who disguise herself to win her beloved (Merchant of Venice, All’s Well That Ends Well, As You Like It). Each of these stories find themselves in Shakespeare’s canon because each of these stories is what Catholics did. Seen as spotless in our savior’s eyes, innocent yet maligned, seeking to love our savior above all else, including earthly governments, and willing to go to any lengths necessary within the boundaries of infinite love and unfailing truth to win souls and secure for our savior his spotless bride.
Our story is the story of the wedding feast of the lamb. Our story is one of love, willing to lay down our own lives, and one that never gives up. And Shakespeare records our story, time and time again, and tells it in a way that honors and memorializes the sufferings of 16th century English Catholic heroes, citizens and saints, many of whom suffered for a love the government tried to forbid.
“Come, come, we are friends.
Let’s have a dance ere we are married,
that we may lighten our own hearts and our wives’ heels.”
– Much Ado About Nothing
Oaths and Love
The issue of the Separation of Church and State in England was created because of an oath, the Oath of Supremacy. Rather than simply creating a new church, King Henry attempted to force all English citizens to break ties to the Catholic church, likewise forsaking their vows to their savior, and replace them with vows to the King of England through the Oath of Supremacy. Henry wasn’t content on merely starting his own church, he wanted to force English citizens to be his followers. He stole from the church to create the Crown’s institution. Again, overstepping the proper role of a king. Rather than emulating the savior who gives, he became a devil who takes. And Shakespeare creates hilarious comedies out of these serious gravities.
From the beginning, Shakespeare bursts on the scene with comedies that tackle this core issue about forcing citizens to partake and love something they care not for. With Comedy of Errors, the issue is one of mistaken identity. The ladies don’t know of the existence of their beloved’s twins, the twins don’t even know for that matter, and there is much confusion as to what’s what. Finally, in due time, all is revealed and reconciled. This play shows the confusion of mistaken church identity and the havoc it wreaked in England, with the hope that there would be a day when all is made clear and restored in its rightful place.
With Taming the Shrew, Petruchio, a name that causes a Catholic to think of the office of Peter, the earthly head of the true church, vows to woo his bride and will not stop until her love is his own and his will obeyed. Once her love is won and she is married, her sister is free to marry. A hilarious take, a kind of history, on the bride of Christ and a lesson for Catholics on how to be tamed by our religion. If anyone wonders, yes, we Catholics are the shrew that must learn obedience to the Savior who loves us without fail and before we even knew him.
The next two comedies tackle this issue even further, this time gentlemen decide on vows they later break. They are forsworn. In Two Gentlemen of Verona, we see one gentleman turn against his friend, causing his friend to be banished while he tries to win the love of his friend’s betrothed by slandering him. Thankfully, Silvia sees through the slanders and lies and tells Proteus, “I am betrothed. And art thou not ashamed to wrong him with thy importunacy?” A moment later she continues, “I am very loath to be your idol, sir. But, since your falsehood shall become you well to worship shadows and adore false shapes, send to me in the morning, and I’ll send the image. And so, good rest.” A couple scenes later, Shakespeare brings the issue of the false Oath of Supremacy to the fore when he has Silvia proclaim,
When Proteus cannot love where he’s beloved!
Read over Julia’s heart, thy first best love,
For whose dear sake thou didst then rend thy faith
Into a thousand oaths, and all those oaths
Descended into perjury, to love me.
Thou hast no faith left now, unless thou’dst two;
And that’s far worse than none. Better have none
Than plural faith, which is too much by one.
Thou counterfeit to thy true friend!
In a fascinating twist, Shakespeare lays out the case. Don’t break your oaths. If you love the church, stay with the church. If you love the State, stay with the State. But don’t pretend to love both churches, that’s “plural faith, which is too much by one.” It takes his next comedy to share with the audiences his true feelings about the oath.
In Love’s Labor’s Lost, a group of men have vowed to study for three years’ term, and during this period of study, have promised to keep various other statutes and strict observances. This is just like what Shakespeare’s generation lived through, for you could not enter university in England without taking the Oath of Supremacy. Hence, all Catholics were barred from university life in England, and if they wanted to further their studies had to head to the continent. The State had created anti-Catholic laws that banished Catholics from public life. Hence, the wonder of why Shakespeare never entered a university is very easily understood when you understand the circumstances at the time, no Catholic – not even Shakespeare – could enter an English university. They were forbidden. There were unjust laws.
Another interesting almost-side story to Love’s Labor’s Lost was the country clown, Costard, and his being “found with a wench” against the king’s edict. When the king asks Costard if he heard of the proclamation, Costard confesses, “I do confess much of the hearing it, but little of the marking of it.” At the time, you could only be legally married by the State church. But Catholics need to be married by a Catholic priest. What was typical for an English Catholic was to marry in an in clandestine ceremony (for example, Romeo and Juliet’s), and only be married in the State church once you were pregnant. This was “on mere necessity” as otherwise the child would be a bastard. So, it was typical for Catholic couples to marry in the State church once the wife was pregnant but before birth for the sake of the child, not the marriage. Hence, in Shakespeare’s life Shakespeare’s wife gave birth six months after their State wedding ceremony. His daughter was given the Catholic name Susanna. Catholic because the heroine appears in the Catholic portion of the bible that Protestants removed. Shakespeare would later have another daughter given a Catholic name, Judith, also named after a heroine of the Catholic bible removed from the Protestant version. Again, Shakespeare’s “shotgun wedding” was exactly what a Catholic of the time would do. There was need to be married by the State only for the benefit of the child. They would have already been married by the church, secretly, like Romeo and Juliet.
And so, throughout the early part of the play the hero Berowne notes in reference to their oath, “this article is made in vain” and “necessity will make us all forsworn.” When he hears of Costard’s punishment he remarks, “I’ll lay my head to any good man’s hat, these oaths and laws will prove an idle scorn.” Shakespeare was hilariously presenting what Catholics believed again in this comedy, and again through the guise of a love story. Truly, he was perfecting the art of a “play within the play,” attempting to prick the consciences of his fellow countrymen.
At the time, only a Catholic would have been so consumed with these ideas and themes. Only a Catholic would have cared about false oaths and forsworn love and the consequences of evil laws, of the importance of not making rash vows, of staying true to one’s word. This was a Catholic issue because it severely affected Catholics. Ours is a religion of the word, meaning Jesus in the flesh. Our mass is a wedding feast, the wedding feast of the lamb. And so, when we break our vow to God, we are breaking our vow to our bridegroom. And when we take an oath that violates our vow, Shakespeare rights some of the most gorgeous lines to encourage Englishmen to be true to Christ. Love’s Labor’s Lost records a few, like
My vow was earthly, thou a heavenly love;
Thy grace, being gained, cures all disgrace in me.
Vows are but breath, and breath a vapor is;
Then thou, fair sun, which on my earth dost shine,
Exhal’st this vapor vow; in thee it is.
If broken then, it is no fault of mine;
If by me broke, what fool is not so wise
To lose an oath to win a paradise?”
Later, Shakespeare records of God, “for your love, would infringe an oath.” And then echoing the savior’s words, the one about losing your lives to save your souls, Berowne tells the king,
Let us once lose our oaths to find ourselves,
Or else we lose ourselves to keep our oaths.
It is religion to be thus forsworn,
For charity itself fulfills the law
And who can sever love from charity?
We could continue talking through how these false oaths, harsh laws, and forsworn lovers feature in many of Shakespeare’s plays, especially his comedies (but not limited to them), but these central points of his first four comedies from early in his career are sufficient to prove the principle found throughout Shakespeare’s canon, that again and again, he’s chronicling the issues that appeared in 16th century England when the State tried to take over the church and set its own Crown-created institution in its place, forcing the Oath of Supremacy upon English citizens. It’s about time we set up an English Inquisition and set right what was stolen long ago.
As Americans, it’s about time we understand the origins of our First Amendment, the origins of which Shakespeare hilariously chronicled in his comedies, and tragically told in his tragedies, the First Amendment is not to remove Christian religion from the State or the public sphere, but to protect Christian religion from a tyrannical State. In God we trust, not government. As Americans, we believe government is instituted for the protection of our God-given rights, among these the right to life (not abortion), liberty (not slavery), and the pursuit of happiness (it’s impossible to tax a nation into prosperity; heavy taxes only lead to poverty).
The scent of Shakespeare is not easy to uncover. It takes patience and prayer, but once you begin to hear Shakespeare, the insights on who we are as Catholics and Americans linger on and on, shedding light into our most treasured rights and the beauty of our church and the context for our many institutions and the protection of our God-given rights. A church often slandered, frequently stolen from, periodically outlawed, but always surviving. Surviving through all of humanity’s societal upheavals, even if it feels like by the hair of a camel threading through the eye of a needle, the church survives. At the end of time, the Savior’s spouse will be found spotless, cleansed by the righteous deeds of our Passover lamb, the mighty lion of Judah.
“Unhappy that I am, I cannot heave
my heart into my mouth. I love your Majesty
According to my bond, no more nor less.”
– Cordelia to King Lear
Devils in Disguise
Only a tyrant would force others to keep an oath that is improper, barring them not only from their savior but also eternal life. Only a usurper would take a power that’s not his own, attempting to steal what is due to God alone. Both tyrants and usurpers are frequent in Shakespeare’s canon, one of his great traits of genius is his ability to create fascinating villains. He centers not only whole plays but entire tetralogies on the study of villainy. And he is a master, characters like Richard III, Iago, and Shylock, find few equals in the annals of great villains of literature. And more than villains, Shakespeare offers insights for mobs and conspiracies, helping audiences understand the dark deeds of those who pretend to be one thing while truly being another.
One of the great traits of Shakespeare is to make his villains relatable, human, even likeable. His villains have charisma. And it’s that charisma that captures the imaginations of the audiences. It’s what makes Shakespeare’s stories so enthralling, and at the same time, he continues to use his villains to highlight themes important to Catholics of his time. But he had ample opportunity to learn, England of the 16th century was not only filled with saints, but was full of tyrants and usurpers and henchmen, and you need not look further than the royal family and their henchmen to find ample examples. Again, Shakespeare was simply chronicling the issues and people of his time. Let’s consider a few in detail.
Shakespeare burst onto the scene with a tetralogy that ends with Richard III usurping the throne and finally being replaced by the man who becomes Henry VII, the grandfather of Elizabeth. Seen in part as a piece of Tudor propaganda (the Tudors were the current royal family, Elizabeth was the last of their line), it was wonderfully subversive as Shakespeare gave Richard traits of Elizabeth and her henchmen. Like Richard III, rumors abounded that Elizabeth had family members poisoned or killed to secure her throne. But Richard III, though had some lose similarities to Elizabeth, was much closer to her lead henchman, Robert Cecil, the hunchback of her inner circle whose family ruled English politics through her reign and her successor’s reign, King James VI of Scotland, the famous King James of the King James Bible (this bible was a State document).
English audiences would have noted the physical parallels between the character of Richard III and the real Robert Cecil. Shakespeare used English history as his medium to discuss current politics. Yes, Shakespeare carefully recrafted key details of the historical Richard to help audiences see Cecil, including the severity of Cecil’s own deformity, which was a Shakespearean exaggeration. The beauty of the play is the opening soliloquy, where Richard confesses to the audience, he’s determined to prove the villain.
“And therefore since I cannot prove a lover
To entertain these fair well-spoken days,
I am determined to prove a villain
And hate the idle pleasure of these days.
Plots have I laid, inductions dangerous,
By drunken prophecies, libels and dreams,
To set my brother Clarence and the king
In deadly hate the one against the other.”
From the beginning, we know we’ve entered into the mind of a villain. Robert Cecil, like Richard III, set royals against their own family, and created discord and chaos in England, and took power for themselves. The beauty of the story is how often the villain quotes scripture or says “by Saint Paul” or “by God’s holy Mother” or even “by holy Paul they love his Grace but lightly,” while the audience and some of those around him see clearly his devilish actions. Initially, his charisma fools many as he wills himself into power through his ingenuity, skill, and charm. And he lets the audience in on his tactic,
But then I sigh, and with a piece of scripture
Tell them that God bids us do good for evil.
And thus I clothe my naked villainy
With odd old ends stol’n out of holy writ,
And seem a saint when most I play the devil.”
Consider the context of his lines. Here we see a detailed study of a villain who usurps the kingdom and takes a crown not his. He freely quotes scripture and has pious sayings, but the audience knows it’s simply a front to his true goals – take power and the kingship at any cost necessary. He is a true usurper. And in a certain sense, he is like King Henry VIII, who usurped a place at the head of the Church which was not his. And when his daughter Elizabeth became Queen, she likewise saw herself put in power by the scheming of William Cecil. And later his hunchbacked son, Robert Cecil, secured not only her power unto her death but also her successor. The Cecil family secured Protestant rulers for generations. Rather than support any return to the old religion, the Cecil family was central to England becoming not only a Protestant nation, but also a Protestant Empire. With odd old ends stol’n out of holy writ, they seemed the saint when they most played the devil.
Like Richard III, Shakespeare’s Iago is another one of the great villains of all time. Whereas Richard III, through Machiavellian means, did much to secure his power and throne, Iago did very little. He wasn’t concerned with taking power, only the downfall of his general and leader, Othello. Iago does very little in action, doing his most dastardly work simply by planting ideas in Othello’s head. Those ideas drive Othello crazy, ultimately leading to the martyrdom of his innocent wife, who like a Catholic of the time, dies saying “I am a Christian.” Little did Othello know, but the audience knew, Iago was the true villain. Othello took Iago as a trusted counselor, not realizing Iago had vowed “I am not what I am” and had professed about Othello “I do hate him as I do hell’s pains.” Nothing Iago does is for Othello’s good, it’s only to cause chaos. Iago is more akin to the father of lies, Satan, than our Savior. While Iago says “I am not who I am,” the divine sons says simply “I am.”
And we could keep talking about various villains in Shakespeare, and their closeness to his contemporaries and profound insights into their actions, influence, and behaviors. We could discuss their great charisma and how Shakespeare’s unique gift in storytelling is creating villains and a study in villainy that captivate audiences, but we will not. Instead, we shall consider one last villain – Shylock. Shylock is amazing because Shakespeare not only makes him villain, but in true Shakespearean fashion gives Shylock amazing lines. To this day, Shylock’s passage “if you prick us do we not bleed” remains masterful lines highlighting what unites us as humans. But in a time when there were no Jews in England, Shakespeare creates a curious villain, the Jew Shylock. Christ was a Jew. His followers too. And his persecutors. By the time of Shakespeare, Catholic literature had created codes, it had to in order to survive State censorship, and rather than blatantly calling out Anglicans in their writings, Catholics would code Anglicans as Jews in their writings. Hence, their church service became known as “synagogues of Satan.” These “synagogues” would rail on the holy church and their leaders would be the greatest persecution of Christians. As Antonio notes, like Richard III,
The divel can cite scripture for his purpose.
An evil soul producing holy witness
Is like a villain with a smiling cheek,
A goodly apple rotten at the heart.
O what a goodly outside falsehood hath.
One of the key storylines is Antonio takes out a loan so that his friend can pursue the beloved Portia and marry her. Much like Christ who gave his life so that we could be a dwelling place for the holy Spirit, Antonio agrees to give as credit a pound of his own fair flesh so that Bassanio could dwell forever with Portia. Though Antonio agrees to Shylock’s terms, Bassanio rightly warns, “I like not fair terms, and a villain’s mind.”
Spoiler alert, and to make a long story short, Bassanio wins Portia but Antonio’s debt payment is delayed. According to the agreement, Antonio must now offer a pound of his fair flesh as repayment. For Catholics of Shakespeare’s time, the scene is eerily familiar. To be Catholic in England was by law treason. So, Catholic priests were by law condemned to die. The courtroom scene where the defense of Antonio is made, may just as well have been Shakespeare’s plea before the rulers of England for mercy for Catholic priests,
The quality of mercy is not strained,
It droppeth as gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath. It is twice blest,
It blesseth him that gives, and him that takes.
‘Tis mightiest in the mightiest, it becomes
The throned monarch better than his crown.
His scepter shows the force of temporal power,
The attribute to awe and majesty,
Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings.
But mercy is above this sceptered sway,
It is enthroned in the hearts of kings,
It is an attribute to God himself.
And earthly power doth then show likest God’s
When mercy seasons justice. Therefore Jew,
Though justice be thy plea, consider this,
That in the course of justice none of us
Should see salvation. We do pray for mercy,
And that same prayer doth teach us all to render
The deeds of mercy. I have spoke thus much
To mitigate the justice of thy plea,
Which if thou follow, this strict court of Venice
Must needs given sentence ‘gainst the merchant there.
When Shylock, like the Anglican royals and rulers cries out, “my deeds upon my head, I crave the law,” and Shylock continues, “an oath, an oath, I have an oath in heaven. Shall I lay perjury for my soul?” Yes, Anglicans had an Oath of Supremacy that yes, they should lay perjury to and lose. Again, Shakespeare is visiting these same themes from a different view, but always a Catholic view, this time begging for mercy for his fellow Catholics, especially the fathers of the faith, Catholic priests.
The genius of Shakespeare comes again, the pound of fair flesh may be lawfully claimed, but if Antonio dies in the process, his death likewise is charged on Shylock. Shylock can extract flesh as payment, but only if Antonio survives. There is a greater law than the English law, and that law shall not be usurped, the divine law of heaven, the law that says “thou shalt not kill.” Even though tyrants and usurpers made these false oaths important and created unjust laws falsely labeled as treasonous, what they had really done is usurped the law of heaven and become tyrants persecuting Christians. Shakespeare made the Catholic cry public, and we cry “mercy!”
Part of Shakespeare’s genius is in his detailed views on villains. He chronicles their behaviors throughout his plays. And he identifies the usurpers, tyrants and faux revolutionaries, warning audiences what to look out for, attempting to guide people to understand, just because someone knows lines of holy scripture doesn’t make them Christian. He was warning Catholics, don’t get caught up in the State-sponsored religion just because they know a few lines of scripture, the devil did too, and these tyrants and usurpers quoting scripture with God’s name on their lips may just be devils in disguise.
“The deed you undertake is damnable…
Erroneous vassals, the great King of Kings
Hath in the tables of his law commanded
That thou shalt do no murder. Will you then
Spurn at his edict and fulfill a man’s?
Take heed. For he holds vengeance in his hand,
To hurl upon their heads that break his law.”
– Richard III
Banished Heroes
It’s no surprise that when English laws ban Catholic religion, another theme frequent in Shakespeare would be banished heroes. The law banished Catholics. The royals killed saints. The rulers exiled citizens. There was no place for Catholics legally in England. And what would a good Catholic playwright do? His plays would certainly deal with the theme of exile and banishment. So, throughout Shakespeare’s canon, he deals with the theme of banishment. Masterpiece tragedies like Romeo & Juliet, Hamlet, King Lear, and Coriolanus deal with good people and heroes banished. Sometimes these heroes return in disguise (like priests) to serve their country (like Hamlet and King Lear). Even comedies deal with this issue (like As You Like It, The Winter’s Tale and The Tempest). Also, his histories deal with this issue. His second tetralogy begins with the banishment of the man who would later become Henry IV and culminates with the heroic tale of Henry V, who leads a just war to restore what was rightly his. The theme of banished heroes is all too relevant to Catholics in England, and the weaving in the theme of the just war was beautifully Catholic and Shakespearean. Let’s consider how.
If the government creates evil laws and banishes good Catholics, what’s the right way for good Catholics to protect their rights and change evil laws? Is war justified? Is defense by arms appropriate? How do we discern between a tyrant and a liberator? Shakespeare’s canon aims to provide good insights and lessons learned into these deep questions. He does so by creating riveting stories. And he doesn’t just give us a picture of usurpers and tyrants, he also gives us heroes and just wars. His second tetralogy culminates with Henry V, and the story of Henry V (aka Prince Hal) is the perfect example of a leader who wages a just war.
Richard II is displaced for waging wars simply for his luxurious living, the lavish waster who’s a tyrant to his subjects. Richard steals the hard-earned money of his people through excessive taxes to fund his wars and fuel his extravagances. Richard saw his subjects as slaves who out of their means should fund his wastefulness. Henry IV, a banished noble, was then returned to England and became ruler. His son, Henry V, became a hero as he saw his role as king as a divinely appointed servant to his people. More so, Henry V is a man concerned with God’s will and seeking to set things right – much like other Shakespearean heroes such as Hamlet and Coriolanus.
The story of King Henry V is fascinating, and it’s one that officially results in the governmental ban on Shakespeare writing any more English history plays. That’s okay, when the law changed the rules, Shakespeare simply adapted his strategy. Rather than looking to recent English history, he would look to ancient history and other stories. Setting plays in the past was setting plays in England’s Catholic past. Setting comedies and tragedies in Italy or other locations allowed him to set those plays in a Catholic environment.
This Catholic background to his stories allowed Shakespeare artistic freedom to include passages on confession, the rosary, cultural practices like crossing oneself, holy phrases invoking saints, and other practices peculiar to Catholic culture. Modern day readers may overlook this stroke of genius on Shakespeare’s part, but it was genius. He purposely set out environments in which he could incorporate Catholic details. These are things a Protestant would either avoid or possibly not even be aware of. But Shakespeare is a genius, and when the government caught up to his methods, they tried to ban his plan, but they simply forced him to shift his strategy. He turned his focus from histories to tragedies.
The rising speech just before the eve of great battle, Shakespeare has Henry V speak in overtly Catholic terms. The speech is so beautiful, let’s quote it in full. The context is a small band of men are preparing for an impossible battle, and Henry has to encourage the troops who are moaning about not having enough on their side as so many remained in England. As you read this speech, notice the reference to Catholic culture. If you don’t see it, no worries, we’ll discuss after.
No my fair cousin.
If we are marked to die, we are enough
To do our country loss, and if to live,
The fewer men, the greater share of honor.
God’s will, I pray thee, wish not one man more.
By Jove, I am not covetous for gold,
Nor care I who doth feed upon my cost.
It earns me not if men my garments wear;
Such outward things dwell not in my desires.
But if it be a sin to covet honor,
I am the most offending soul alive.
No, faith, my coz, wish not a man from England.
God’s peace, I would not lose so great an honor
As one man more, methinks, would share from me
For the best hope I have. Oh, do not wish one more.
Rather proclaim it, Westmorland, through my host
That he which hath no stomach to this fight,
Let him depart. His passport shall be made
And crowns for convoy put into his purse.
We would not die in that man’s company
That fears his fellowship to die with us.
This day is called the Feast of Crispian.
He that outlives this day and comes safe home
Will stand a-tiptoe when the day is named
And rouse him at the name of Crispian.
He that shall see this day and live old age
Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbors
And say, “Tomorrow is Saint Crispian.”
Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars
And say, “These wounds I had on Crispin’s Day.
Old men forget; yet all shall be forgot,
But he’ll remember with advantages
What feats he did that day. Then shall our names,
Familiar in his mouth as household words –
Harry the King, Bedford and Exeter,
Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester -
Be in their flowing cups freshly remembered.
This story shall the good man teach his son,
And Crispin Crispian shall ne’er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remembered,
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers –
For he today that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne’er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition.
And gentlemen in England now abed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here
And hold their manhood cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin’s day.
Thank God for this play. George Washington loved it, and many Americans watched it in times of just wars and it has stirred many people to greatness – in England and America. For ideas are expressed in words, and words lead to action. So many great men were stirred to great action by these great words. But for a Catholic, there is a little more, Shakespeare wrote this amazing play in a time when it was illegal to celebrate the holidays of the saints. Those not familiar with Catholic culture may not realize, but Shakespeare specifically rooted on of the most rousing speeches in dramatic history, copied again and again in movies and stories, and rooted it on the holiday of a saint. A holiday banned. A saint no longer legally venerated in England. No wonder Shakespeare was banned from writing histories, he was reminding the island country of their rich and beautiful Catholic history. A Catholic history being erased and a Catholic religion which was banned.
Moreover, with the recent memory of the Spanish Armada just a few years earlier, and with the concern of the right of the Spaniards to wage a just war to free Catholics and possibly claim the throne that was rightly theirs, something had to be done and Shakespeare had to be stopped. When Shakespeare ends his career and starts his First Folio with The Tempest, a play with many characters named after Spanish Catholic heroes, we hear strong echoes of where Shakespeare stood on these issues. No wonder the government didn’t let him publish most of his plays and didn’t allow him to continue writing plays based on recent English history. Shakespeare was too Catholic, too revolutionary, writing plays to catch the conscience of the kings and queens of England, so that they’d stop their oppressive measures against God’s people and the bride of Christ, the Catholic church.
Thankfully, Shakespeare could not be stopped. Fret not, his mission continued. The unjust laws simply changed how he executed his strategy. They couldn’t change his mission, nor stop it. He was faithful to it unto death. Instead of looking back to English history, he turned to Roman history and Greek stories and other tragedies and found even more clever ways to highlight the evils of tyrannical royals and the sufferings of English citizens and Catholic heroes and saints. Yes, Shakespeare is Catholic. And those with ears to hear, learn to hear Shakespeare.
Now, Shakespeare’s plays had other themes he revisited across his portfolio of plays, but what is written herein is sufficient to see that Shakespeare is Catholic, and with that information begin to hear Shakespeare as he himself intended, with an eye towards the future but with the other towards preserving the old religion, the divine one instituted by Jesus himself, son of David, king of Kings, and son of God. Let those with ears to hear, hear Shakespeare.
“Read him, therefore; and again, and again. And if then, you do not like him,
surely you are in some manifest danger not to understand him.”
–Prelude to Shakespeare’s First Folio