Talk:Religious views of William Shakespeare

DYK?

Someone familiar with the subject should submit this as a Did you know article. I think it would easily make the main page. Wrad 18:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and did it. Wrad 01:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

"Infected" with the Atheism?

Shouldn't it be "affected"?

Given the context, I'm pretty sure it's right, though I don't have the source. It is from a Catholic work, and the wording surrounding it seems to support "infected" over "affected". Wrad 03:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

It's available online [1]: "infected" it is! In this case, however, it's a secondary source: they are presenting it as the view of Richard Simpson, a shakespearean scholar of the nineteenth century. The encyclopaedia's own view is that WS thought "sympathetically and even tenderly of the creed in which his father and mother had been brought up". --Old Moonraker 05:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

To this non-scholarly reader Shakespeare's work is remarkable for its lack of overt religious feeling. Proponents of the contrary have to scratch hard to find any grist for their particular mills. Xxanthippe 22:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

This is an excellent observation. Several scholars have actually pointed this out as a possible reason of why his reputation is so great. Maybe we could add this to the article. Wrad 23:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Shakespeare behavior respect authorities (in his plays) was always strange and subversive. The "lack of religious feeling" if is true thing would support the catholic identity of Shakespeare, because rather than a sign of atheism is probably a trace of any hidden religion (perhaps because he professed a subversive religion, too). In that age being atheist isn't dangerous, but being catholic... (Mendelev)

Given the circumstances of Christopher Marlowe's death, in the midst of a high-level investigation into atheism in which he was a major suspect, it's difficult to agree that "In that age being atheist isn't dangerous"... --Paularblaster (talk) 18:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

In that time any behavior against authority was dangerous in any country. But all people knows that in England there has been a criminal religious membership. Yes, always there has been a special "devotion" and "exquisite treatment" toward catholics. Of course the papists were around conspiring against the Royal Crown, supported by Pope of Rome, the enemy of England. Were the atheists the targets of this "witch hunt" or rather were the catholics? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.3.252.99 (talk) 12:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

So one might take it from Shakespeare's reticence about religion that his personal beliefs would offend those in power; but to go from that to a statistical argument that Shakespeare is likely to have been Catholic because most of those in England whose beliefs were offensive to those in power were Catholics, simply isn't enough. --Paularblaster (talk) 07:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I remind you I used the conditional and the word "trace". Is curious the facts remain hidden for history. I wonder why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.22.61.234 (talk) 15:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Title change?

This article does not seem to be about "Shakespeare's Religion", but rather "Shakespeare's Supposed Catholicism". I suggest that it is either re-titled to reflect the sole bent of the article, or the article be expanded to include other speculations about Shakespeare's religious beliefs (or lack thereof). Clotten 20:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that may be a little too specific of a Title. Most scholars agree that there is more evidence for Catholicism than for anything else, but to change the article's name just doesn't seem beneficiary. What would be the point? This article does have a few other claims in it, besides Catholicism. I honestly don't know of any others theories. If you'd like, just put a move template up and we'll get some editors who know more about the subject to discuss this... Wrad 20:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

England was resolutely Protestant in Shakespeare's time. There is only one issue to discuss: was he Protestant (as he would have appeared publicly) or was he a recusant Catholic? "Shakespeare's religion" is a neat NPOV title for that discussion, though. "Shakespeare's Supposed Catholicism" is thoroughly POV. AndyJones 21:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Cloten seems to be arguing, though, that this article is already POV in favor of Catholicism. Is this the case? If so, how do we fix it? Wrad 21:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not keen to take this job on, but at a quick glance I'd say:

1. Purge the article of redundancy/repetition,
2. Vigorously cull all the weasels,
3. Reduce the discussion of C Asquith and check out the critical response (if any) to her work.
4. Look at Michael Wood, who assesses the Catholic evidence in "In Search of Shakespeare". AndyJones 21:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

England was not resolutely Protestant in Shakespeare's time and recent scholarship is making that more and more apparent. Further, the region where he was raised was a hotbed of the Old Faith. Certainly, the views of those scholars who maintain he was not Catholic should be represented, but to suggest that his Anglicanism is presumed is the now recognized erroneous assumption of a later England which had become much more stably Protestant.Mamalujo 22:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Leave the title as is. Yes, the article currently focuses too much on the Shakespeare's alleged Catholicism, but that is a short-coming of the article, not the subject or title. If more info on this subject was added, the article wouldn't feel so one-sided.--Alabamaboy 23:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

No change: when the balance of the article is improved, along the lines indicated above, the suggested change will become redundant. --Old Moonraker 06:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I find it interesting that in Shakespeare's last will and testament, he states, "In the name of God, amen. I William Shackspeare of Stratford upon Avon in the countrie of Warr' gent in perfect health and memorie, god by praysed, doe make and Ordayne this my last will and testament in manner and forme followeing that ys to saye first I comend my Soule into the hands of God my Creator hoping and assuredlie beleeving through the onelie merittes of Jesus Christe my Saviour to be made partaker of lyfe everlasting, and my bodye to the Earthe whereof yt ys made."

I think that indicates belief in Christianity of some sort, just a bit. Michaelzxhc (talk) 15:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I added the article to wikiproject Anglicanism in the hopes that somebody will come down here and add something. I do not have the knowledge or the desire to do the research myself. -- SECisek 04:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Fixing note links

I've added some detail to the notes, with links on the C. Asquith footnote to the Google sample chapters of her book, and with a wiki link to her Wiki site.--Ajschorschiii 05:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

S's Schooling

I've added some more specifics from Ackroyd on the close association of S's teachers and a fellow pupil with Catholicism. --Ajschorschiii 06:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

S's family

I've made a change to the sentence on the testament found in home of WS's father, to reflect the 20th century evidence definitively linking the testament's reported wording to a document composed by Charles Borromeo. The sentence I replaced did not reflect the findings of 20th century scholarship. --Ajschorschiii 03:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

/* Shakespeare's family */ Re his daughter's alleged puritan sympathies: I have altered "Susannah's sister" to "Susannah", since the authority cited in the footnote (from the Catholic Encyclopedia) in fact refers to Susannah ('the elder Mrs Hall"), not her sister Judith Quiney. In fact this source does not offer any evidence on Susannah's religious views--though it is known that she married Dr Hall, a strong Protestant (of whom Shakespeare clearly approved, since he made him co-executor of his will--a point that someone else might like to weave into this page's balnce of arguments). I don't think anything is known of Judith or her husband's religious views, except that they were not recusants. Note that this mistake which I have, I hope, corrected, may have already spawned confusion between the two sisters. See the article https://www.osv.com/OSVNewsweekly/ByIssue/Article/TabId/735/ArtMID/13636/ArticleID/2616/Do-signatures-prove-that-Shakespeare-was-Catholic.aspx which argues in favor of Shakespeare's being a Catholic that "Shạ̄kespe̍are chōs̩e Süs̩ạnnàh as the e̍x̩ẹcūtor of his will, not his other dạ̏ughter, who had mạ͑rried a Prọtèstant." Marcasella (talk) 06:18, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Equivocator

One of the reasons presented to doubt Shakespeare's Catholicism is that he called a man convicted in the Gunpowder Plots an "equivocator." This sounds like a strange use of the word. Isn't it strange, if Shakespeare wrote this out of opposition to Catholicism to charge the man with equivocating of all things, if we take his meaning properly? Fr. Garnett attempted to blow up the British Parlaiment, but he's in hell for being purposefully ambiguous? Could he instead mean to condemn Fr. Garnett for replying to violence with violence? 65.126.19.22 (talk) 20:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC) D Marsh

You're right that equivocation is purposeful ambiguity, but the Gunpowder Plot equivocation being referred to is not just any old ambiguity - it's about giving deliberately deceptive testimony in a treason trial. TooManyFingers (talk) 08:18, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Failed verification tag re Michael Wood (historian) in "Catholic sympathies"

In the reference it is Milward, not Wood, who claims that in rewriting King Leir Shakespeare expurgated the "clearly Protestant, ant-papist bias". Wood merely states that Shakespeare had a "fascination" for the work. As "Wood" is not supported by the reference I propose removing him. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

After looking at the source again, I see you are correct. Sorry about that - carless reading on my part. I removed Wood from that sentence.Mamalujo (talk) 18:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Wood covers the issue extensively in In Search of Shakespeare and he is generally accepting of the view that WS may have held Catholic sympathies. Just one example, from many: he draws broadly the same conclusion as Pearce regarding the Blackfriars gatehouse. Possible scope for expansion, if anyone felt so inclined. --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

New lede section

This was deleted as "POV intro"[2] but reinstated. This from WP:LEDE: "The lead serves both as an introduction to the article, and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article." AFAICS the new version satisfies the "summary" part of the WP requirement but not, as yet, the "introduction"; perhaps there should be an opening sentence putting the piece into context. There is certainly no case for deleting it completely. --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

What do you suggest for an opening sentence? Xxanthippe (talk) 12:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC).

Fair point. I saw this coming up, but I couldn't really think of anything. To "explain why the subject is interesting or notable" (WP:LEDE again) how about polishing this up a bit:

"Knowledge of Shakespeare's religion is important in understanding the man and his works because of the wealth of biblical and liturgical allusions, both Protestant and Catholic, in his writings and the hidden references to contemporary religious tensions to be found in the plays. The topic is the subject of intense scholarly debate."

This can be referenced from Schoenbaum's chapter on "Faith and knowledge". --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Afterthought: looking back to a previous observation from User:Xxanthippe at Talk:Shakespeare's religion#"Infected" with the Atheism? , I'm not implying that there is a great deal of "overt religious feeling" in the works: it's the use of language that's significant. --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, no dissenting voices: inserting. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the new intro is quite flawed. It is supposed to be a summary of the article. It is not. Indeed, it contains matter which is not even found in the article. For example, one sentence states: "There is no direct evidence to show that William Shakespeare was other than a conforming member of the Anglican Church, in common with the majority of the people of England in his time." The sentence implies that there IS direct evidence that WS was a conforming member of the Anglican church. What is that evidence? Moreover, where is it in the article. That sentence also states that the majority of English were Anglicans. Where is the article is there a source on Shakespeare which says the majority were Anglican (it would have to be a source on Shakespeare - to avoid OR and SYN). There IS a source in the article that says there was a widespread resistance to the new established Church. Considering that Catholics then were divided among "conforming Catholics" (who believed the old faith but conformed to the new), "Church Papists" (who attended Anglican church but also the Catholic sacraments in secret), and the recusants (who refused to partake in the new established faith), how can we say what the majority of anonymous masses believed, especially if we cannot say, as some of this article asserts, what one very famous man believed. Also, the intro misunderstands and misleads what direct and circumstantial evidence are in terms of proof. Circumstantial evidence alone can be sufficient without direct evidence to prove something. The intro implies otherwise. Moreover, the terms and the concept play a large part in the intro and are virtually nonexistent in the article. This intro is in no way a summary or intro to this article. With regard to the atheism reference in the intro, there is only one century old source (there's been a lot of scholarship on this subject in the last century) which does not even assert his atheism but merely makes an off the cuff remark - it doesn't belong in the intro. The earlier incarnation was better and I think we should use it or draft another version which actually comports with Wikipedia guidelines. Mamalujo (talk) 19:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

To take up one point from User:Mamalujo: The lede actually says the opposite, because he/she has just reinserted this: "evidence suggests that ... that he himself was Catholic". This isn't in the article either: we can't have a rule applied only to one side of the argument. As I don't find evidence for that statement, only inference and speculation, in what follows I have tagged it for a source. On one point we can agree: the lede isn't satisfactory at present. It has to introduce the piece and summarise what follows. It succeeds at neither. --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Cross post: now reads "some evidence", an improvement. Still like to have it referenced, please. Please also remember that removing {{fact}} tags when a citation is still required (as you have done in the past, here for example) is bad practice. --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for the removal of the tags. However, the assertion is actually abundantly sourced in the body of the article, which the intro summarizes. It just seemed a little excessive to request a cite for the assertion that there is evidence of WS's family's and his own Catholicism when the article is replete with such cites. Still, I understand I should have addressed my thoughts here or provided cites rather than removing the tag. Mamalujo (talk) 22:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The prominent feature of this topic is the uncertainty associated with the existing historical evidence. Even the identity of Shakespeare himself is disputed vigorously (Shakespeare authorship question). His identity has even been attributed to Sir Henry Neville, a staunch Protestant. On the subject of Shakespeare's religious views there is a wide variety of opinion. All views need to be noted in the article but balance between mainstream and fringe opinions must be allowed to be clear and the article must not be allowed to become a vehicle for one viewpoint in preference to another. Accordingly I have rewritten the lede to stress the uncertainty associated with the matter and have added an expert template to the article in the hope that recognised scholars of the subject will contribute to improving its balance. One user objects to the use of the phrase "conforming member of the Anglican Church". He seems to have missed the qualifier "conforming". To cite an example in contrast, the historical evidence is quite clear that WS's contemporary and fellow genius William Byrd was definitely not a conforming member of the Anglican Church. No such evidence exists for Shakespeare. If the user claims that it does then he should source it. It is also beyond doubt that the majority of the people of England in WS's time were conforming (note that word) members of the Church of England; indeed they were required to be so by the Act of Uniformity. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC).

Support this version from User:Xxanthippe: Seems to satisfy the requirements of WP:LEDE and most of the concerns expressed above. I wouldn't want to cram this section out with more references, but for example supporting quotes for "conforming member of the Anglican Church" are available: the noted Elizabethan scholar A. L. Rowse in his WS biography has "He was an orthodox, confirming member of the Church into which he had been baptised, was brought up and married, in which his children were reared and in whose arms he at length was buried". There are many others to support all the contentions here. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree that the lede (as it is called!) should not be overburdened with references. However, the one you quote could well find a place in the bulk of the article. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC).

OK, added lower down. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Google books links

A recent edit removed some Google books links from the cites. Is there some sort of policy or convention in Wikipedia about such links in the cites? I actually think the links are quite useful for verification and further research. Mamalujo (talk) 15:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It's usual to delegate that task to Special:Booksources by way of the ISBN or similar identifier; for several reasons (one of which is that this method allows the user to choose which databases to view the book on, including Google Books), the primary one being that Wikipedia should not "advertise" for one specific database (in this case Google) or vendor. I'm not aware that this has force of policy, but it is the usual practice. --Xover (talk) 15:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

"John Speed called Shakespeare a Catholic"

No he didn't: his accusation associated him with the Jesuit Robert Persons, but didn't call him a Catholic. As all three of the references that were used to support this statement were "failed verification" I removed it, rather than applying the {{FV}} tag (and repairing the broken syntax) on each one. Please don't put it back again: it's patently a misreading of the sources. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

All three of the sources I've added say unequivocally that Speed is accusing WS of Catholicism:

“John Speed, for example, was quite certain that Shakespeare was acting as a Catholic apologist in travestying the historical Sir John Olcastle as Falstaff: ‘That N.D…...” Kewes, Paulina, The uses of history in early modern England, p. 172, Univ. of California Press 2006; “John Speed (in 1611) and Richard Davies (c. 1660) both alleged or assumed that Shakespeare was a ‘papist’.” Alexander, Catherine M. S. and Stanley Wells, The Cambridge Shakespeare Library, p. 320, Cambridge Univ. Press 2003; and “In addition to these tantalizing hints, there are two hostile assertions of Shakespeare’s Catholicism by seventeenth-century writers. In his History of Great Britain (1611), John Speed…” Young, R.V., DECODING SHAKESPEARE:THE BARD AS POET OR POLITICIAN, pp. 4-5. As you know, per Wikipedia policy your or my interpretation of what Speed said and meant are beside the point. What RSs say is what matters. I can easily give you another half dozen reliable sources that say the same thing. I would like to revert but I don't want to get into an edit war. Please advise on your thoughts. Mamalujo (talk) 18:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Taking the sources as given in the last version (syntax uncorrected) from User:Mamalujo [3]:

Wood says: "...it was now that the historian John Speed revived his attack on Shakespeare 'for the Oldcastle slanders', linking him with the Jesuit Robert Persona as 'the papist and his poet'".

Young: "John Speed attacks the Jesuit, Fr. Robert Persons...because he 'hath made Oldcastle a ruffian, a robber, and a rebel, and his authority, taken from the stage-players, is more befitting the pen of his slanderous report, than the credit of the judicious, being only grounded from this papist and his poet….

Kewes: "John Speed is quite certain that Shakespeare was acting as a Catholic apologist..."

The above three references are used as a source for "identified [Shakespeare] as a Catholic" but they do not support the assertion. According to Speed Shakespeare associated with, or acted as an apologist for, Persons, which is not the same thing at all. No "interpretation" would seem likely to change this, but if I've missed something, please point it out. --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Kewes:“John Speed, for example, was quite certain that Shakespeare was acting as a Catholic apologist in travestying the historical Sir John Olcastle as Falstaff".

Alexander: “John Speed (in 1611) and Richard Davies (c. 1660) both alleged or assumed that Shakespeare was a ‘papist’.”

Young: “In addition to these tantalizing hints, there are 'two hostile assertions of Shakespeare’s Catholicism' by seventeenth-century writers" - then going on and referring to Davies and Speed. All three plainly say Speed is calling WS a Catholic. I'm going to edit accordingly. Mamalujo (talk) 21:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Outdent] Looks like we are going to have to demolish the three failed references on-by-one, so {{failed verification}} tags attached to each. Just stuffing them back into the article with the comment that they "plainly say" something they plainly don't isn't helpful. Please don't remove the tags until the matter as resolved.

Furthermore, please note that the quote attributed to "Alexander" in the footnotes ([25] at the time of posting) is actually from Gary Taylor in "The Fortunes of Oldcastle" from Shakespeare Survey 38 (1985), where Shakespeare's satiric intention in dealing with Olcastle/Falstaff is more closely examined. More attention to the detail from the sources, in the content as well as identifying the authors correctly, seems to be needed.

--Old Moonraker (talk) 06:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Just copying in some WP policy which may be relevant: From WP:RS: "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made" (emphasis as in original). From WP:SYN: Do not put together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion or implication which advances a position that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources". --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The tags have been removed without discussion. The attribution to the wrong author and the WP:SYN extrapolations are still in place, although in one case the wording has been changed to match more closely its supposed source (this is the source with the attribution to the wrong author). At the risk of belaboring this fairly insignificant point, but in the interests of balance, I have added another author who offers a different view. This compromise leaves us with a completely unwieldy and undue quantity of detail for Speed's remarks. If we must have it in let's have the short version as here, or similar. --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I've trimmed a bit, but it's still substantial.--Old Moonraker (talk) 00:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

The Church of England as "Catholic"

A recent edit in complete good faith has inserted, at first sight counter-intuitively, that the Church Of England was Catholic. This is certainly arguable, but the argument is outside the scope of this article and I have re-instated the conventional "Protestant" distinction as more appropriate here. Many references exist to justify this and can be added if thought necessary.

Minor point from hyphen: "Hyphens should normally not be used in adverb–adjective modifiers"

--Old Moonraker (talk) 14:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Joseph Pearce

Most authors doing business in the Shakespeare biography industry make reference to the question of religion, but Pearce, associate professor at Ave Maria University and, as his publisher notes, "dedicated to reclaiming Catholic culture", has devoted two works entirely to this topic: Through Shakespeare's Eyes: Seeing the Catholic Presence in the Plays and The Quest for Shakespeare: The Bard of Avon and the Church of Rome. Presumably it's for reasons of lavish availability that Pearce's output seems to dominate the references in the article and, as a result, Wikipedia:Reliable sources and undue weight may be compromised. Anyone have suggestions for other, reliable sources to include, for balance? --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of Pearce. When I checked one detail I found he was outrageously distorting the evidence. We certainly need less tendentious material. Paul B (talk) 13:49, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree with the above. This article has been plagued by sectarian POV. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC).

One short section attributed to Pearce removed; plenty left for his fans. --Old Moonraker (talk) 00:16, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I have changed "Joseph Pearce notes that King John, King Lear and Hamlet were all works that had been done recently and in English with an anti-Catholic bias, and that Shakespeare's versions appear to be a refutation of the source plays." to ""Joseph Pearce claims etc ..." Reason: We know very little about the "Ur-Hamlet" or Ur-Hamlets, except that it/they were attacked by rival playwrights as extravagantly Senecan and ranting. There is no absolute proof that it/they were not Shakespeare's. Or that it/they were anti-Catholic. It is a common problem that when noted scholars erect speculations based on evidence that is itself doubtful, our abbreviated summaries often wrongly imply that the initial evidence is solid fact. Marcasella (talk) 16:03, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

If Pearce were a WP contributor, instead of an author extravagantly quoted by certain contributors, his posts would be barred as failing the WP:NEUTRAL tests, dedicated as he is to "reclaiming Catholic culture" (see above). No more tinkering with content sourced to his books: suggest that you follow your guidelines and "exclude the material altogether".--217.155.32.221 (talk) 12:26, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Rowan Williams

The inclusion of an off-the-cuff remark from His Grace seems to me to be as good an example of WP:RECENT as you could find but, as it seems to have survived for the time being, may I draw attention to his actual quote? Williams said: "I don't think it tells us a great deal, to settle whether he was a Catholic or a Protestant but...I think he probably had a Catholic background" whereas the WP article reads "Rowan Williams...expressed his view that he believed Shakespeare to be Catholic." The article text very plainly misrepresents what Williams said. WP has WP:BLP duty to get this sort of thing right: "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page" (emphasis as in original). Various editors have tried to correct the entry, but have been reverted with the inaccurate information reinstated. Going back to the cited version, again. --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

It is not at all an instance of recentism. Williams is the head of the English church and his position on the matter is notable and very significant. You are right about BLB, however the article from a reliable source explicitly says: "Dr Rowan Williams said he believed him to be a Catholic." Indeed, it says it again a second time: "William Shakespeare was probably a Catholic, according to the Archbishop of Canterbury in an exploration of spirituality and secularism in the Bard's plays". The headline also says it (I know this is typically the work of editors not reporters). So it essentially states this fact three times in simple declaratory language. The fact that the article quotes him on some related matters is beside the point. You are second guessing the source. That is an inappropriate editor's gloss akin to original research. We have a reliable source saying Williams said this. That is sufficient. You seem to be speculating that the author of the article misinterpreted the quote which is printed to mean more that what it does. But you are merely guessing that that is the case. For all you know someone asked his a question which he simply answered "yes" and which did not make for a good quote. The fact of the matter is that a reliable source says what it says. Mamalujo (talk) 18:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't actually think Williams' position on the matter is particularly notable. There is nothing to suggest that Williams has any great expertise on the topic. Being the head of a modern religious organisation does not give him some automatic status to expert commentary on history, (anymore than being the head of the British army would to pontificate about the Battle of Hastings); indeed his other comments suggest that he rather ignorant about the cultural background, particularly the rather silly remarks on how "nice" Shakespeare was or wasn't. However, the gloss by a journalist who may know nothing at all about the topic is not some sort of Infallible Utterance. In Wikipedia's sense reliable source is simply a concept that applies to whether a source can be used. It does not mean that every word said in it must be accepted as absolute truth. Journalists are perfectly capable of exaggerating and over-simplifying; indeed they do it all the time. We do have the right to use sources with that in mind. BTW, Shakespeare married his daughter to a well-known Puritan and gave most of his money to the couple, which suggests "Catholic background" is more sensible than "Catholic". And since that is what Williams actually said, it seems proper to quote his words, if we need to. Paul B (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Quoting his words is perfectly acceptable, but that doesn't mean that citing to a paraphase, especially one that is reiterated, is impermissable. Yes, journalists do make mistakes, but here it is the very point of the article. It appears twice and in the headline. Editor speculation and guessing about journalistic errors, especially where there is no evidence of it, is not appropriate. Williams may not be an expert on the subject but he is head of the church of which Shakespeare was purportedly a member. He also is a highly educated man holding two doctorates and was invited to this literary festival to discuss the subject. Granted, his opinion is in no way decisive, but it is very notable. Mamalujo (talk) 19:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Re "there is no evidenc of it is not appropriate" [sic]: The absence of evidence that it is wrong isn't sufficient for inclusion here; contributors have to demonstrate that it is correct. See: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". Speculating that actually he meant something other than what he actually said is WP:NOR.

Re "was invited to this literary festival to discuss the subject": This was an off-the-cuff remark of no notability, as reported in "A missed chance", Western Mail, 1 June 2011, page 2: "We were told, at the outset, that the playwright's religious convictions were not on the agenda".

--Old Moonraker (talk) 21:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

On your first point, maybe I didn't make myself clear (also I was missing a comma until after you commented). I was saying that speculation about errors is not appropriate. As to the burden, it has been met. A RS reported that he said he believed Shakespeare was Catholic and source even reiterated the point. Your point is that you don't believe he said that, or that the author was misconstruing the published quotation to mean that. That is rank speculation and it also misses the obvious and more likely explanation, that the author was paraphrasing other words of his that are not found in the article. Again, to detirmine that it was "off the cuff" requires OR. The Archbishop's discussion of his belief was notable enough to be the subject of an article in the Telegraph. Mamalujo (talk) 22:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I see that I too need to clarify: Williams's off-the-cuff remark came in reply to "a last minute plea ... from the floor as the hour rolled to its close" (Western Mail again).

The Telegraph had sponsored the event, so perhaps the story was subbed back in the newsroom to try to give it some news value as the paper needed to get something for its money. (Now that is an example of "rank speculation", and I'm offering it with full apologies to the journalists concerned!)

--Old Moonraker (talk) 07:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I've listened to the audio of the Hay Festival discussion, and I'm satisfied to leave it as it is with the quoted portion. Mamalujo (talk) 19:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the entire (short) paragraph: the views of any one modern cleric (even the Archbishop of Cantebury), made offhand to popular media no less, are irrelevant to an article whose subject spans 400 years and has been the subject of actual research by people qualified in the field. The preceding paragraph is cited to Schoenbaum for Pete's sake: citing The Daily Telegraph immediately following, and in a section titled Historical sources no less, is simple recentism and lacks perspective. --Xover (talk) 09:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Consensus is with you: most recent editors, both at the article and here on the talk page, will agree with that. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:10, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Me too. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC).

Since Mamalujo continues to re-add this, I will add that I too agree that it is not notable. Paul B (talk) 14:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

C of E severed from what?

Explanation for xXanthippe: it's misleading to say that the Church of England was severed from the Papacy, because it gives the false impression, to my mind at least, that the "Papacy in Rome" is somehow separable from the Roman Catholic Church when in fact the papacy is integral to it. In the next sentence, I've replaced "reforms" with "practices" because "reforms" has a positive connotation, but no English Catholic at the time would have thought the changes were for the better. In the following sentence I left "reforms" alone because it is somewhat neutralized by "imposed". --Kenatipo ^speak! 01:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

47. Knapp, Jeffrey (2001). "The religion of players", Shakespeare Survey 54, p.61

Regarding footnote 47: Can someone post the complete quote? Two questions: 1) why is Peter Milward being singled out here? it looks like Milward was not the only Shakespeare scholar named in that quotation; let's see all the names, then decide how to proceed. 2) who is Jeffrey Knapp to be pontificating on the value of another scholar's contribution? --Kenatipo ^speak! 20:18, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Whether other schoalrs are also mentioned is surely irrelevant, since this is in response to a point specifically about Milward. As for your second question, it's not for us to judge whether Knapp is "allowed" to have an opinion, is it? We report on scholars' views. He is a scholar in the relevant field. Paul B (talk) 20:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Kenatipo. I don't think this is a widely held opinion. My impression is that the contrary is true. He, for exapmle, was the first to suggest the Shakeshafte connection to fill in the lost years. That was an idea, among others, that certainly got traction. Asquith is a dilettante to Shakespearean studies and a nonacademic. Milward however, as his article says, is "a leading figure in scholarship on English Renaissance literature", and almost all of his work in this area has been on Shakespeare. Mamalujo (talk) 00:08, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Can someone please post the entire quote here, so we can all read it and make some decisions? On the face of it, it appears that Peter Milward is being sandbagged. I'm not denying Knapp his right to an opinion, so long as it's ascribed explicitly to him and not made to appear like the judgment of the entire scholarly community. --Kenatipo ^speak! 01:27, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

As requested:

This is not to say that all modern criticism of Renaissance drama is secularist. Some scholars do assert that ‘the deepest inspiration in Shakespeare’s plays is both religious and Christian’ (Peter Milward, Shakespeare’s religious background (Chicago, 1973). p. 274), but they have had little influence on recent Shakespeare scholarship, in large part because they tend to allegorize the plays crudely, as Shuger [sc. Debora Shuger] says.

--Old Moonraker (talk) 07:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

"Who is Jeffrey Knapp?": Chancellor's Professor of English, Berkeley [4]. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for posting this, Old Moonraker. (You beat me to it -- I was able to torture it out of the snippet view, finally). As it turns out, it's not really Knapp speaking, is it? It's really Debora Shuger's opinion, around 2001, and, I don't think our summary of the quote in our article is an adequate summary. For one thing, was Shuger dismissing all of Milward's scholarship? I doubt it. I think we need to look at this. --Kenatipo ^speak! 15:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The section needed the extended quotation you added. --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:23, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Dibdale "joins the Jesuits" in section "Shakespeare's schooling"

A few days ago I changed the language because it sounded like Dibdale became a Jesuit (Old Moonraker changed it back). I believe Ackroyd is incorrect on pp.63-64 p.61 (corrected, per OM). Dibdale was not a Jesuit; he was what is called a "seminary priest" or "secular clergy", meaning he didn't belong to an order like the Jesuits or Franciscans. The Wiki article Robert Dibdale makes no mention of the Society of Jesus, based on Anstruther's book Seminary Priests and Brownlow's book. Peter Milward, a Jesuit, makes no mention of Dibdale being a Jesuit in Shakespeare's Religious Background (Loyola UP, Chicago, 1985, pp.39, 52–54, 68). The Catholic Encyclopedia article about English martyrs [5] designates the Jesuits with an S.J. after their names, e.g. Thomas Cottom, but not after R. Dibdale. --Kenatipo ^speak! 03:06, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

My change was for stylistic reasons, rather than factual—the possibly over-nice grammatical point was in the edit summary—but you have prompted me to look at Ackroyd. Firstly, the page number should be 61 (at least, in my edition). There, Ackroyd's wording is completely in accord with your reading—"there they were joined by ... Robert Debdale"; my grammatical tweak obscured this. I'm going to fix this with "travelled to", which would make the point very clear. Thanks for patiently pointing this out for me. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Old Moonraker. You are a gentleman and a scholar! And, your edit solves the problem. You are correct about the page number -- I was reading footnote 16 instead of 18. (I intend to go back and learn from your grammar lesson when I have a minute - I am interested in understanding what you were trying to teach). It would be nice to be able to afford to buy all these source books and journal articles and read them instantly on line, but I can't. I spend a silly amount of time trying to torture the Googlebooks snippet view into showing me what I'm searching for! On page 446, Ackroyd says this, which also mislead me: Among the Jesuit priests, who were accused of feigning ceremonies of exorcism on some impressionable chambermaids, were Thomas Cottam and Robert Debdale. Cottam was the (from the Googlebooks snippet view). --Kenatipo ^speak! 13:58, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Shakespeare and the Geneva Bible

There's an article in yesterday's Guardian in which John Banville writes about Harold Bloom. Apparently, Bloom, in his Anatomy of Influence, says "I do not know whether Shakespeare the man was Protestant or Catholic, skeptic or occultist, Hermetist or nihilist (though I suspect that last possibility), but the dramatist regularly drew upon the arch-Protestant Geneva Bible throughout the last 17 years of his productivity."

The WP article on Bloom has a section on his interest in Shakespeare, but I can't find any reference to the Geneva Bible there, or in this article about his religion, nor in William Shakespeare, and there's only one mention of him in the Geneva Bible article. I'm no expert on these matters, but if Bloom is correct there ought to be something about it at least in the Protestant section of this article (and perhaps as well, if we're looking at "his last 17 years of productivity", in the Shakespeare authorship question article too). --GuillaumeTell 22:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

It's previewed on Google Books (p. 62 et sec). Bloom specifically tells us that he is talking only about vocabulary, and not religion: "I am referring not to faith or spirituality but to the arts of language". We're probably ok leaving it out. --Old Moonraker (talk) 22:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Problematic

This entire debate is problematic because it is entirely possible that, like many of his countrymen, Shakespeare's religious views changed over time. The Elizabethan Settlement was a very gradual process, especially outside London. Elizabeth didn't just snap her fingers and make every church Anglican. Parliament didn't even adopt the Thirty-Nine Articles until 1571, and there was a severe shortage of qualified clergy in the early part of her reign. Documents from the time period have indicated that in the 1560s, there were parish priests who did not even know how to recite the Lord's Prayer, for instance. If you were to grow up in a cultural milieu in which your family's local Catholic priest (who was preaching the state religion from 1553-58) was replaced by an "Anglican" who did not seem to understand the religion he was supposed to belong to, you might find yourself longing for the old days - or simply skeptical. It's believed that much of England did not accept Anglicanism during the first half of Elizabeth's reign. But as time passed and the Church of England's beliefs became more established (and competent parish clergy replaced the first batch), many people become reconciled to the church. This could have happened to Shakespeare as well. Funnyhat (talk) 17:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Very plausible. You ought to write an essay about it but at the moment it's OR. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC).

"Atheism" section header change

The section discusses only Atheism. Possible lack of religious affiliation would be a very valid topic for a new section, but this isn't it. I suggest a revert and even, later on, a new section to cover this: it looks like a plausible and interesting topic! --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Xxanthippe, for the fix. Now, anybody up for a new paragraph on this? --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion for re-arranging the material

The present structure of the article, with separate sections for the various theories, is very logical but it doesn't lend itself to getting across any overall sense of balance on the topic. To get away from this adversarial, corner-fighting style of presentation I'm thinking of reshuffling it by source or category of material. Thus we would have sections for the family circumstances (e.g., the Ardens, the unsound priest at Temple Grafton), incidents from the life (his schoolmasters, the Hoghtons, the gatehouse at Blackfriars), textual evidence from the plays and sonnets, documentary evidence (Collier's grubbing through the parish records at St Saviour's, the workmen's discovery of the Borromeo tract) and later commentary.

By removing the divisions as they stand at present the article will present a more neutral point of view; at present the tug-of-war way in which it has developed is all too evident. The re-shuffle should disguise this, and improve the article accordingly. However, I don't want to start this if it's not going to be accepted; if contributors prefer the current battleground, please speak up now.

--Old Moonraker (talk) 10:08, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the article is in such poor shape as it is, but it could use improvement. For the most part, I don't object to making the changes as you outline them. Still, I can't say in advance that I won't take exception. I will say organizing by sources doesn't seem to be the best idea. Give it a go, if you think it will improve the article. Mamalujo (talk) 19:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:William Shakespeare's influence which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Shakespeare's Will, revealing Christian beliefs. Censored?

Hello. I would like to know why the article does not mention anything about Shakespeare's will, which first paragraph is totally representative of the topic of the article. I can't believe it hasn't been quoted in the article, but I expect we don't want this little piece of writing to be censured. My edition has just been reverted. I assume good faith. I just I consider that there is a paragraph in Shakespeare's will that ought to be quoted, given the importance of it on this matter. This was what I wrote with the appropriate references (I don't know what's wrong with this or why is this not allowed in the article):

Some scholars have studied his religious beliefs on the basis of his will, which has been considered as a piece that reveals understanding about Shakespeare' religious position. [The Portsmouth Institute (2013). "Newman and the Intellectual Tradition: Portsmouth Review", Sheed & Ward. p. 127]

His will begins with the following expression of faith:[David Scott Kastan (2014). "A Will to Believe: Shakespeare and Religion", Oxford University Press. p. 27-28]

In the name of God, Amen. I, William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon in the county of Warwick, gent., in perfect health and memory, God be praised, do make and ordain this my last will and testament in manner and form following. That is to say, first, I commend my soul into the hands of God my Creator, hoping and assuredly believing, through the only merits of Jesus Christ my Saviour, to be made partaker of life everlasting, and my body to the earth whereof it is made.

— Shakespeare, (1616)

(Sources: [ William Shakespeare; Charles Knight, James Orchard Halliwell-Phillipps Martin, Johnson, (1851). The Complete Works of Shakespeare, from the Original Text: Life of Shakespeare. p. LIII] [ Robert Nye (2013), The Late Mr. Shakespeare. Skyhorse Publishing, Inc., Ch. 96. ] (Note: His will is actually widely known and quoted in many academic studies)

In addition, some have also considered Shakespeare's will as a direct evidence of protestant religious beliefs; [John Donnan Countermine (1906), "The Religious Belief of Shakespeare", p. 30 ] David Kastan has indicated that the phrase "through thonlie merittes of Jesus Christe" is an undeniable reference to the doctrine of solus Christus, which regards salvation as possible only because of Christ's sacrifice, without Church intermediaries. [David Scott Kastan (2014). "A Will to Believe: Shakespeare and Religion", Oxford University Press. p. 27] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goose friend (talk • contribs) 03:10, 30 April 2014

The standard preamble to the will was put in by lawyers to all wills, just as they do now in a different form, so it doesn't mean much. You could mention it in the main body of the article. Incidentally, the word you are probably looking for is spelt "censored". Xxanthippe (talk) 03:21, 30 April 2014 (UTC).

Indeed. I saw the material inserted at William Shakespeare (diff) and thought it looked suspect there. It makes no sense to take a will written 400 years ago and draw conclusions from the standard boilerplate without making a scholarly study of the norms for that time and place and social situation. My instinct is that the material is WP:UNDUE but that assessment needs someone who is prepared to look at the source. Johnuniq (talk) 03:54, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Fair point. My take on this article is:

Q What was Shakespeare's religion?

A Church of England, as prescribed by the Act of Uniformity.

Q What were Shakespeare's religious opinions?

A There's not much evidence that he had any.

but the religious obsessives never stop. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:41, 30 April 2014 (UTC).

You may call me a "religious obsessive" but stereotyping me does not solve anything. It only shows your bias and lack of arguments. Maybe there is evidence but you don't want to accept it because you don't like the immediate conclusion. I'm not saying that it is proved that he was a member of the Church of England, but I'm just showing an important historical writing that would show that he believed in God. What's wrong with that? And after all, brothers, where's your proof that "all wills" had exactly the same standard preamble at that time? We'll have to see it because we don't want people repeating information they only read on Internet or wrote without all the evidence. For my part, I gave reliable sources from Yale, Oxford and other college scholars or studies which not only deal with his will but also with religious rethoric and religious allusions in his works. Have you already read them or check them? If speculations about authors who want to impose their atheistic interpretations into Shakespeare's plots are quoted in the article, why can't you allow his very will to be quoted too? In such case, where's the neutral point of view? Where is it if you raise your opinion about his will as fact, whereas you censor other voices who differ with your opinion? In case you don't know, His Will is one of the only six surviving writings that are known to have been signed (i.e. approved) by himself, and that's another reason why at least its first paragraph should be quoted in an article as this one. You may doubt it as your personal interpretation, and that's your right, but in my view it's your skepticism against his will and against the studies of prominent Shakespeareologists who consider the will as a direct evidence of Shakespearean religious beliefs. Consider that one doesn't have to remove material just because one dislike it. If you did that, I call that censorship and I read that that is not to be accepted in Wikipedia; There, please take into account this: Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable...' Some articles may include images, text or links that are relevant to the topic but that some people find objectionable.

It'd be pretty good if you change your mind and allow it to be quoted, regardless of your personal point of view. Thank you.--Goose friend (talk) 05:39, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I certainly never meant to call you a religious obsessive, although such people have appeared on these pages. I suggested above that you should insert material about the will seamlessly in the body of the article (not in the lede). The form that I would guess to be acceptable to editors would be shorter than your original suggestion and would cite a reliable authority. For example...."Some scholars [reliable reference] have suggested that Shakespeare's will reflected on his religious beliefs." I don't think any more than that is needed because, as two editors have argued above, the case for making solid deductions on the basis of the legal conventions of 400 years ago is weak. Incidentally, Shakespeare was a member of the Church of England because he was defined to be so by law, as was everybody then. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:10, 1 May 2014 (UTC).

Provided that his Will is a personal writing which Shakespeare himself signed and from which he - not his interpretors - can be quoted as expressing direct religious beliefs, I wrote it in the lede of the article. I understand that you diminish the importance of Shakespeare's Will, that on this matter "it doesn't mean much" for you, and that for you "it makes no sense... to draw conclusions" from it. But thanks for finally understanding that that is your opinion and that some scholars disagree with you. As David Scot Kastan (Ph.D., University of Chicago; B.A., Princeton University; English Professor in Yale University) states:

"William Shakespeare did, however, leave his own will, which begins with an expression of faith... This is as close as we can get to an expression of his own belief, and might well be taken as conclusive evidence"

— David Scott Kastan (2014). "A Will to Believe: Shakespeare and Religion", Oxford University Press. p. 27

On such basis, I wrote it in the lede. I guess it could be quoted in the body of the article in the section "Protestantism" because of the allusion to the doctrine of solus Christus. However, I then would ask you why the following interpretation (which is in the lede) retains more importance over the interpretation about Shakespeare's Will:

However Father Thomas McCoog SJ, the archivist of the English Province of the Society of Jesus, takes a sceptical line on the question of Shakespeare's supposed Catholic sympathies, saying that "the quest for such proof has progressed from a demiconfessional cottage industry to a non-sectarian semicircus"

Thanks in advance.--Goose friend (talk) 16:56, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Given your answer, I've added the referenced research in the body of the article, with slight modifications and some few more mentions of other studies by well-known scholars.--Goose friend (talk) 20:17, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Goose Friend, your quotation completely misrepresents what Kasten says. The sentence you quote is merely the introduction to a discussion, in which he rhetorically asserts what someone might think about the wording. His actual conclusion is: "the preamble to the will, however, may tell us far less than we might hope about Shakespeare' faith, since the wording turns out to be entirely formulaic. A book of legal forms published the year before Shakespeare's death includes as one of its templates the almost identical preamble...the conventionality of the wording says nothing one way or another about whether or not he believed what it asserted." Referring to the theological significance of the word "only", he adds that "may itself have become merely conventional by 1616, and have little or any theological import". In other words, your quotation from Kasten on this page falsifies what he actually says. Paul B (talk) 21:21, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I see Paul Barlow. I must admit I was drawn when I read how Kastan stated that his Will "might well be taken as conclusive evidence" when discussing Shakespeare's religion. I did not read between lines and I offer my apologies. Kastan discussed the arguments both for and against Catholic and Protestant descriptions as both Catholic and Protestant and I thought it was his own opinion as he had stated:

Certainly Shakespeare grew up in a world in which the traditional religion still must exerted some theological and affective claims on the community in which he lived, and yet he would have had little, if any, experience of Catholic forms of worship. What he believed must elude us, but he was baptized and buried in the reformed religion, as were his children; he was never cited for recunsancy, he lived for a time with a Huguenot family in London, after 1596 he quotes most often from the Geneva Bible (even quoting on occasion from its marginalia, so it was a bible he had read rather than only heard), and his plays held the stage... William Shakespeare did, however, leave his own will, which begins with an expression of faith - and this is undeniable genuine... This is as close as we can get to an expression of his own belief, and might well be taken as conclusive evidence, pace [Richard] Davies, that, however he lived, he died a Protestant. While historians have usefully warned about the dangers in attempting to derive confessional loyalties from will preambles, here there is an unmistakable Protestant marker: "through thonlie merittes of Jesus Christe." This is the defining solus Christus theme of Protestantism in which salvation is possible only through unmerited grace made available by the redemptive sacrifice of Christ.

— p.27

I quoted what he wrote in that part, but I also cared to clarify that "However, Kastan recognizes that the Will is not the ultimate evidence to define Shakespeare's religious affiliation, since the preamble was formulaic in the epoch." I just found out that Kastan stated: "I don't know what or even if he believed. But I am claiming what seems undeniable: that he recognized and responded to the various ways in which religion charged the world in which he lived."

Still, there are these contrasting opinions of A. L. Rowse, who stated that "He died, as he had lived, a conforming member of the Church of England. His will made that perfectly clear - in facts, puts it beyond dispute, for it uses the Protestant formula."

I now see a deeper picture the debate about this topic and that's why I think a very representative conclusion occurs when "Dympna Callaghan concludes that "we may not know decisively if Shakespeare was a Catholic, but crucially, neither do we know that he was a stalwart Protestant." I thank you for all your comments on this topic.--Goose friend (talk) 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Tendentious words 'Speculation', 'evidence' and lack of neutrality

As I was checking the article, I noticed several problems in the logic of the writing. On the one hand, the word "evidence" is used tendentiously; and at times it makes the article sound contradictory:

There is no direct evidence of William Shakespeare's religious affiliation...

and then

Some evidence suggests that... he himself was a secret Catholic; although there is disagreement over whether he in fact was so

also:

These speculations are based on circumstantial evidence from historical records and on analysis of his published work.

and then:

Due to the paucity of direct evidence, general agreement on the matter has not yet been reached.

Some evidence in support of Shakespeare's supposed atheism, and then only in the form of "evidence of absence", exists in the discovery by John Payne

The word "evidence" (and 'discovery' as well) implies a resolved judgment about the matter, as if it were "a fact." Some scholars consider "evidence" what for some other scholars is by no means such thing. e.g.

• For Jesuit Father Peter Milward and Clare Asquith, there is evidence that Shakespeare was a Catholic.
• For Sir Frederick Bilby Watson and A. L. Rowse, there is evidence that Shakespeare was a Protestant.
• For William Birch and the writer Vadim Nikolayev, there is evidence that Shakespeare was an atheist.

In this Wikipedia article, where a Neutral point of view is needed, and a clear writing style is needed, we cannot use the word "evidence" in such different ways to refer to the same thing, unless we want the article to be contradictory.

Notice also that the word "speculation" is used with bias, as you can notice in the following sentence:

"there have been many speculations about the personal religious beliefs that he may have held, if any."

This statement suggests that authors are only speculating when they are searching for signs of Shakespeare's religious beliefs, while in fact, authors are also speculating when they are searching for signs of atheism in his writings. The truth is that if there is a "paucity of direct evidence" about Shakespeare's Christianity, there is much less about atheism in his personal writings.

I propose a whole revision of the article taking into account the need of a neutral point of view, and I suggest that the use of the word "interpretation" be used more. After all, it is the interpretation of scholars and historians about Shakespeare's religious view what this article most talks about.--Goose friend (talk) 01:08, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The word "evidence" does not mean "proof". Scientists and historians talk about X being evidence for Y, even when the evidence is only very slim and Y is probably not correct. They do that to be neutral when assessing a situation—collect all the evidence for various possibly different conclusions, then judge which is the most convincing. I do not see any tendentious words or lack of neutrality—"if any" is standard boilerplate. Johnuniq (talk) 01:36, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• • While I'm not sure about the word "evidence", a good reading of WP:AVOID does confirm some non-neutral phrasing in the article - for example, the article does violate WP:CLAIM on more than half-a-dozen occasions. When one expert "says" something, but another only "claims" something, the word "claims" could come off sounding biased against the claimer. Better to use said, stated, wrote, described or "according to", as per the guideline.Smatprt (talk) 22:21, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• • • To quote WP:Words to Avoid: "To write that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence." This is why I have replaced "claimed" with other phrasing. The guideline is quite clear. Other neutral options can include: "Said, stated, described, wrote, and according to". Smatprt (talk) 17:05, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Substantiating claims on the Aykroyd study

To answer the question that was asked of me, Mr. Aykroyd's work is being cited, but shouldn't his conclusions be verified by some experts in the field? I'm not sure about here on Wikipedia, but journalistic standards normally require verification and substantiation of spectacular claims, especially within academia, where opinions run quite passionate. I've not heard of any writings in Shakespeare's hand that anyone could agree on. Excepting his signatures, naturally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FatGuySeven (talk • contribs) 20:52, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

How is there any debate?

His will makes it pretty clear as to his religion-christianity, this should be at the top of the page. Why is it not?Sellingstuff (talk) 01:44, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

See much debate about this matter on the talk page above. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC).

Jacobean England was not like modern Europe or America. They didn't have humanist funerals. Wills were written to formula on the assumption that you belonged to the state religion unless you insisted on some alternative form of words. Paul B (talk) 14:09, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok well we can eliminate muslim, jew, budhist, hindu and a lot of other ones. Eliminate atheism based on his will. Which leaves us with what his will actually says, that he believed in Jesus Christ which makes him of the christian religionSellingstuff (talk) 11:03, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

All these matters have been dealt with above. There is no need to repeat them. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:44, 14 June 2015 (UTC).

Judaism

What about Judaism? --Error (talk) 19:50, 3 February 2021 (UTC)