Joseph Pearce calls the movie, "Anonymous", an "act of defamation against the Bard himself"

From his essay, "Anything But Anonymous: Shakespeare the Catholic ", on the Crisis magazine site:

Almost five hundred years after his death, William Shakespeare remains one of the most important figures in human history. Standing shoulder to shoulder with Homer and Dante, he is part of the triumvirate of literary giants who straddle the centuries as permanent witnesses of the permanent things. It is, therefore, gratifying that modern scholarship is showing that this great genius was a believing Catholic in very anti-Catholic times. In this light, Anonymous, the latest Hollywood film purporting to depict Shakespeare and his times, is not only a travesty of history but an act of defamation against the Bard himself.

Anonymous is based upon the discredited “Oxfordian” hypothesis that Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford, wrote Shakespeare’s plays.

Although the Oxfordians have erected fabulously imaginative theories to prove that Edward de Vere wrote the plays, it takes a great deal of naiveté and gullibility to take their claims seriously. Edward de Vere died in 1604, a year after the death of Queen Elizabeth, and about eight years before the last of Shakespeare’s plays was written and performed. Needless to say, the Oxfordians have gone to great lengths, stretching the bounds of credulity to the very limit (and beyond), to explain why the plays were not performed until after their “Shakespeare’s” death.

The claims of the Oxfordians might be bizarre but they are positively pedestrian compared to some of the wackier “Shakespeare” theorists. Other aristocratic candidates who are alleged by some to have been the real Shakespeare include King James I, and the earls of Derby, Rutland, Essex and Southampton. Others have claimed that Mr Shakespeare was really Mrs Shakespeare, in the sense that the plays were really written by Shakespeare’s wife, Anne Hathaway, using her husband’s name as a nom de plume.

It would, perhaps, be a little unfair to suggest that the relatively sober claims of the Oxfordians are as ridiculous as the wackier theories. Ultimately, however, the Oxfordian case can be disproved through the application of solid historical evidence, combined with common sense. Take, for example, the central premise of the Oxfordian case that the plays must have been written by an aristocrat or, at least, by one with a university education, on the assumption that Shakespeare, as a commoner without a university education, must have been illiterate, or, at any rate, incapable of writing literature of such sublime quality.

Read the entire piece. Joseph, for those who don't know, is the author of three books on Shakespeare—The Quest for Shakespeare: The Bard of Avon and the Church of Rome (Ignatius Press, 2008), Through Shakespeare's Eyes: Seeing the Catholic Presence in the Plays (Ignatius Press, 2010), and Shakespeare On Love (Ignatius Press; to be published in 2012).

Related on Insight Scoop and Ignatius Insight:

• Fr. Joseph Fessio and Joseph Pearce discuss, "Who really was William Shakespeare?" (Oct. 28, 2011)
• A "Bard's-eye" View | The Preface and Prologue to Through Shakespeare's Eyes: Seeing the Catholic Presence in the Plays | Joseph Pearce
• Finding Shakespeare and Reclaiming the Classics | Joseph Pearce
• Will the Real Shakespeare Please Stand Up? | The opening chapter of The Quest for Shakespeare
• Fr. Joseph Fessio and Joseph Pearce Talk About Shakespeare | A video interview (Sept. 8, 2008)
• The Quest for Shakespeare website (includes a PDF version of this excerpt from The Quest for Shakespeare)

Comments

[Mark Pilon]

"It would, perhaps, be a little unfair to suggest that the relatively sober claims of the Oxfordians are as ridiculous as the wackier theories."

Joe,

You should be ashamed of pious posturing after having suggested exactly that thing about Oxfordians. It's like saying, "If I were willing to be unfair, I'd point out that only proven psychotics support your theory, but, being the fair-minded man that I am, I won't mention it!" Other theories have no bearing on the Oxfordian argument and their use in your article suggests a certain desperation in not being able to make your case without resorting to a form of ad hominem attack.

You should also be ashamed of misrepresenting the arguments of your opponents. Your man, Chesterton, is justly praised for fairly characterizing his opponents' arguments. That is not happening here.

Mark