Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Author Topic: Eleison Comments - Hamlet equals Apostasy (no. 599)  (Read 736 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Matthew

  • Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 22038
  • Reputation: +19331/-114
  • Gender: Male
Eleison Comments - Hamlet equals Apostasy (no. 599)
« on: January 06, 2019, 09:21:33 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Number DXCIX (599)
    January 5, 2019
    Hamlet = Apostasy
    The world is rotten, boys, round and about,
    But God remains, unchanged. Have there no doubt!

    If Hamlet is possibly the most puzzling, probably the most interesting, and certainly the most modern amongst all 37 of Shakespeare’s stage plays, it is all for the same reason – there is an elephant in the room. That elephant is England’s apostasy from the Catholic Faith which was being hammered home by the English government when Shakespeare wrote the play, around 1600 AD, and which was driving him to despair because he was a devout Catholic. So (1) Hamlet is the most puzzling of his plays for the mass of post-Catholic readers or theatre-goers or critics who have no inkling of the “Reformation” as being the greatest disaster ever to befall England. (2) It is the most interesting of the plays because it is pivotal and conflictual between the past Middle Ages and the coming Modern Age. (3) It is the most modern, because over the last 400 years virtually the entire world has come to share in England’s apostasy.
    (1) But who cares about apostasy today? How many people even know what the word means (a falling away from the Catholic Faith)? There was a time, like 1600 in England, when the Devil fiercely persecuted the Faith, so that Shakespeare had to disguise the Faith in his plays in order not to be hanged, drawn and quartered. But today the Devil ruins many more souls by making them take it for granted that religion is of so little importance that anybody can choose any religion he likes, or none. The vile media are so awash in error and immorality that the mass of people do not even notice them any more. See Clare Asquith’s book Shadowplay for the Catholic coding in all Shakespeare’s plays. But if Hamlet’s incestuous mother, Queen Gertrude, does indeed represent England committing incest with Protestantism, his uncle, is it any wonder if our contemporaries can see no proportionate reason for Prince Hamlet’s melancholy?
    (2) The play is pivotal and conflictual because, like no other of Shakespeare’s plays, it is suspended between the medieval world and the New World Order, because Shakespeare himself was being shaken to the core by the seeming success of the stamping out of the Faith in his beloved country, as can be read in the play from the bitterness of the Prince towards almost everyone around him, especially his true love, Ophelia. Now a Catholic is not bitter, but Shakespeare was bitter, in writing Hamlet. It did not last. Read John Vyvyan’s immensely valuable book, The Shakespearean Ethic, if you want to discern that moral pattern underlying all the plays which was Shakespeare’s glorious heritage from medieval England. It is even present in Hamlet, notably in the Prince’s spurning of Ophelia to make room in his heart for revenge, but in Hamlet as in no other play the corruption of society – by apostasy, no less – is so terrible that the anti-social Prince comes over as an absolute hero, the first in a long line of anti-authoritarian heroes (cf. Hollywood) needing to override all natural respect for social authority. Apostasy kills society.
    (3) And so Hamlet is the most modern of the Shakespeare plays because it is the play which most departs from, or overlays, the medieval model. Shakespeare wrote many plays after Hamlet, but he was never again tempted to replace love by vengeance, or to return from the New to the Old Testament. He regained his calm and balance while still writing superb plays, but in 1611 he abandoned the stage and London to leave the Puritans to take over England and lead eventually all the world away from God. By today generations of young men suckled on anti-heroes have turned into anti-men, with little to nothing left in them of their medieval heritage. But human nature has not changed, and human beings still need men to lead, which is why the girls are trying to make themselves into men, and the two y oung sexes more and more spurn one another. In a line from Macbeth, “Confusion now hath made his masterpiece.”
    If you read Hamlet, beware of the Ghost in Act One. If you are Catholic you know that Almighty God would never let out of Purgatory a soul to pursue revenge. Then where can the Ghost come from, other than from Hell? In which case, is the Prince really such a hero? Shakespeare’s bitterness was understandable, but it twisted his theology. Young men, adore and love Jesus Christ, love His Mother, pray her Rosary and lead the girls. That is what they need you for.
    Kyrie eleison.
    Start your Amazon.com session by clicking this link, and my family and I get a commission on your purchase!

    Offline Incredulous

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4115
    • Reputation: +5050/-251
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Eleison Comments - Hamlet equals Apostasy (no. 599)
    « Reply #1 on: January 06, 2019, 11:16:55 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0


  • I've always wondered if Hamlet's rejection of Ophelia, was where the term, "Go jump in a lake!" came from ?

    "Some preachers will keep silence about the truth, and others will trample it underfoot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days Our Lord Jesus Christ will send them not a true Pastor but a destroyer."  St. Francis of Assisi


    Offline Mithrandylan

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3403
    • Reputation: +4045/-213
    • Gender: Male
      • The Trad Forum
    Re: Eleison Comments - Hamlet equals Apostasy (no. 599)
    « Reply #2 on: January 07, 2019, 01:05:26 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • I'm not so sure I agree with +W's reading of the Ghost. It's arguable. I understand the Ghost to have requested an avenging, yes, but a lawful one: for, Claudius illegally usurped the throne, and Hamlet, as the rightful heir, could stake his claim and punish his uncle. Of course, Hamlet went about it differently but that's beside the point. If we grant that the Ghost is real, we can understand his request in the way I just described, and the burden is on Hamlet to udnerstand it the same way, and to he motivated by justice (rather than passion). His failure to act justly to his uncle, as bad as he was, is something of a mini-tragedy within the greater tragedy. 
    More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com

    Offline cassini

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1575
    • Reputation: +816/-95
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Eleison Comments - Hamlet equals Apostasy (no. 599)
    « Reply #3 on: January 07, 2019, 08:32:16 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • ' which was driving him [Shakespeare] to despair because he was a devout Catholic.' --- +W

    That is, if Shakespeare was William Shaksper, a subject that has fascinated many over the years.

    Having read Alfred Dodd's Francis Bacon's Personal Life Story (Rider & Co, 1949) I no longer do, for Dodd shows evidence that Shakespeare was Sir Francis Bacon, and he was no Catholic.

    William Shaksper of Stratford, Dodd reveals, was an illiterate groom who went to London to seek his fortune. There he set up a trade in holding and feeding the horses for the gentry as they attended the Globe Playhouse. Bacon, who had contacts with the theatre’s owner, and who often attended plays held there, met and made it his business to know Bill Shaksper for his name appealed to the esoterically minded Bacon. With a little adjustment he saw that this name could be tailored into the title for an author who would ‘shake the sphere (world)’ or the ‘spear-shaker,’ a reference to the tradition of the woman depicted with the helmet in a martial stance and shaking the spear of wisdom at the serpent of ignorance. This same woman was known to the Greeks as Pallas Athene and to the Romans as Minerva, a statue of which can be found even in the Vatican itself. This is the Gnostic Freemasonic profaning of Genesis 3:15, the ‘woman’ of Genesis, that divine promise revealed to man in the Scriptures in the wake of the fall and which became manifested as the Virgin Mary standing on the Earth with her foot on the serpent’s head. This reversion to restrained paganism and anti-Catholic ethos in contemporary writings, Martin Gwynne [sedevacantist] concludes, is to be found widespread throughout the works of Shakespeare.[1]

    [1] M. Gwynne: Baconiana; The Francis Bacon Society Inc., December 1992.

    Next the reasons for Bacon’s anonymous authorship of Shakespeare’s works:

    ‘The Reformation did nothing to aid free thought…Puritans and Romanists alike were united in their persecution of philosophy and their hatred of secular knowledge for the common people…‘Ever since Italy had been darkened by the shadow of the Inquisition, men had begun to devise means to communicate with each other, and with their public, in a style which should be intelligible to themselves without giving offence to Rome. Open revolt was impossible. They matched their wits against their persecutors and were able to say pretty nearly what they liked by a system of disguised writing. The use of double writing in serious literature was the only method of free expression open to men of letters…to write in such a manner that the authorities might assume their doctrines to be orthodox while the public for whom it was designed might readily perceive its real drift. Except by resort to this old and time-honoured device, the spirit of independent thought would have perished altogether.’[1]     

    [1] Gertrude Leigh: Passing of Beatrice, p.X, quoted by Dodd, op. cit., p.27.


    The hard fact is that there is no evidence at all to show that the peasant born William Shaksper that is now accredited with the works named after him is in fact their author. If one believes that commoner Shaksper alone, without any inspiration from high or low was capable of such a feat as depicted in the all-embracing worlds of Shakespeare, then one will believe anything. Of all the supposed writers of Shakespeare, only Bacon fits this mould, for he was of royal blood, lived in its environment, had the intellect, the esoteric Hermetic background, the understanding, the education and experience, the talent, the wealth, the occupation and authority to access the information, travelled a lot, and above all, had the motive and means to pen the vast and ingenious works of Shakespeare. Bacon’s knowledge of Hermetic, neo-Platonic and cabbalistic teaching appears by way of certain Rosicrucian themes found in Shakespeare’s As You Like It; Love’s Labour Lost; Venus and Adonis; and his Sonnets.

    ‘In Bacon’s New Atlantis we have a vision of a science ruled by sages of Solomon’s House (Magi) and the Father of Solomon’s house rides in a chariot surmounted by a golden sun. It is possible that the character of Berowne in Shakespeare’s Love’s Labour’s Lost is based on Bruno perhaps also the two pedants, Don Armado and Holofernes, who are the foils of the lovers. Some of the rituals connected with Masonry may be derived from the Hermetic writings, and Mozart’s Magic Flute that is, concerned with Freemasonry as a temple of Osiris and Egyptian priests.’[1] 

    Shakespeare is also awash with such propaganda, symbols, allegory, coded messages and innuendos. For example, in the Comedy of Errors Act V, sc., I:

    ‘DUKE: One of these men is Genius to the other; and so of these: which is the natural man, and which is the spirit? Who deciphers them?’

    The ‘Genius’ is of course Francis Bacon himself, and he goes on to tease the world in his Shakespeare’s ‘Comedy of Errors’ by asking who is the natural son and who is the spiritual Son, profaning the Lord Jesus when He asked the Pharisees: ‘What do you think of the Christ? Whose son is He,’ (Matt.22:42). Here Jesus was trying to draw out of them a recognition of the fact that He is the Spiritual Sonship as revealed in the opening sentence of the New Testament, where in the Melchisedech sense of (Ps 109:4) He is termed a Son of David, in contra-distinction to David’s natural son and successor Solomon in whose name the rival ‘Allegorical Temple’ was/is being built. This distinction is of such grave import that the very reality of the two kinds of sonship forms the martial backdrop to the allegory key that the former Pharisee-Adept Saul would later as Paul give to the Galatians (4:24). This affront is repeated in the inscription on the Shakespeare Monument at Stratford:

    ‘Why goest thou by so fast? Read, if thou canst,
                               WHOM envious Death hath plast within this Monument.’

    In other words, “Whom do men say that I am?”[2] Now why the need for a riddle if Shaksper from Stratford is indeed the great author? No, for what we are dealing with here is a man who would even mimic Christ all the while remaining invisible so as to be able to operate unhindered by criticism or impediment, thus demonstrating his occult loyalty to the esotericism of Hermetic Socinianism and Rosicrucianism. Now recall: ‘Masonry must be felt everywhere, but must be found nowhere.’

    [1] J. Trusted: Physics and Metaphysics: Routledge, 1991, p.40.
    [2] A. Dodd: Francis Bacon’s Personal Life-Story p.23.

    I believe Shakespeare himself gives the game away when he acts totally out of character by his vicious attack on the integrity of (St) Joan of Arc in his play Henry VI, treating the English as having ‘God as our fortress’ and the French as being one with the ‘witches and the help of hell’ (Act.II, Sc.1) and ‘Devil, or devil's dam’ (1:5). ‘In 1576 Queen Elizabeth packed the young Bacon up and personally shipped him off to France. She wanted him to spy on foreign governments and officials in the same capacity as John Dee.’[1] The likes of Bacon would be very well aware that Joan la Puchelle was used by God in this war of Principalities and Powers. Consequently, whereas he was a man able to engage and parry as equal with anyone from King to the most lowly wretch, all of whom are manifested in the writings of Shakespeare, he could not contain himself when making reference to a superior on the Melchisedech field of combat, the soldier of Christ, Joan of Arc, now a saint, whom Diana Vaughan was pleased to invoke in her conflict against her former colleagues in proto-Freemasonry.

    ‘In the first part of [Shakespeare’s] Henry the Sixth, Jeanne d’Arc addresses the Duke of Burgundy in a speech of thirty-three lines. This speech is an absolutely faithful version of a letter in France written by the Maid of Orleans to the then Duke of Burgundy and dated July 17th, 1429. There is no historical authority for this letter which never saw the light of print till discovered by the Historian of the house of Burgundy in 1780. Bacon in his travels might easily have seen this letter [and certainly necver read by William Shaksper, the ilerate groom from Stratford]: in fact the author of this play must have done so. [Shaksper] was never within miles of it.’[2]

    [1] Richard Allan Wagner: The Truth about Freemasons, 2015.
    [2] Walter Ellis’s The Shakespeare Myth, Bacon Society, 1937.

    There is of course lots more to do with Shakespeare and Catholicism, but the above will give some food for thought.

    Offline Mithrandylan

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3403
    • Reputation: +4045/-213
    • Gender: Male
      • The Trad Forum
    Re: Eleison Comments - Hamlet equals Apostasy (no. 599)
    « Reply #4 on: January 07, 2019, 09:17:48 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Dodd was a pattern-seeking freemason driven to ridiculous claims.  
    More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com


    Offline cassini

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1575
    • Reputation: +816/-95
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Eleison Comments - Hamlet equals Apostasy (no. 599)
    « Reply #5 on: January 07, 2019, 10:58:01 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Dodd was a pattern-seeking freemason driven to ridiculous claims.  

    Didn't know that. Where above then are the fictions so I can learn something? 

    Offline Marie Teresa

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 50
    • Reputation: +34/-0
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Eleison Comments - Hamlet equals Apostasy (no. 599)
    « Reply #6 on: January 07, 2019, 11:01:27 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • ' which was driving him [Shakespeare] to despair because he was a devout Catholic.' --- +W

    That is, if Shakespeare was William Shaksper, a subject that has fascinated many over the years.

    .
    A talk covering the questions:    Is Shakespeare important?  Is Shakespeare Shakespeare?   Is Shakespeare Catholic? 

    Entire talk starts here:  Evidence for the Bard's Catholicism

    If you want to jump straight to one of the last 2 questions: 

    Is Shakespeare Shakespeare?
    (25:24 - 35:48 )

    Is Shakespeare Catholic?  

    Offline Mithrandylan

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3403
    • Reputation: +4045/-213
    • Gender: Male
      • The Trad Forum
    Re: Eleison Comments - Hamlet equals Apostasy (no. 599)
    « Reply #7 on: January 07, 2019, 11:28:22 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Didn't know that. Where above then are the fictions so I can learn something?
    .
    Dodd was absolutely fascinated with freemasonry (and was himself a freemason).  He absolutely drips with admiration for the fraternity, and is (I would guess, anyways) motivated by delight in subverting conventional wisdom to bolster the prestige of the English lodges, as is pretty evident for his other books, like the one where he claims "Shakespeare" invented freemasonry, a pretty silly claim even for the staunchest of Limey masons http://www.sirbacon.org/dodd.html

    Most of what he does is seek out material he can twist to have freemasonic meaning, while otherwise simply ignoring or trying to cast rhetorical doubt on what the vast (and I mean vast) majority of Shakespearean critics and experts in Shakespearean authorship have always concluded (that Shakespeare was really Shakespeare).  You know, things like "do you really think a peasant could have done that" or "Shakespeare spells his name different ways", etc.  Where there are "gaps" in the records, there are perfectly plausible explanations (most notably, the recusancy of the Shakespeare family, the administrative distress in nascent Reformation England, etc.) and where there are purported "inconsistencies" there are likewise historical realities, such as the fact that the language wasn't standardized.  Point simply being that as is the case with most of these skeptics, Dodd (like they) take observations which may of themselves be true (such as scant records of his early life), and then run with them to what seems like an all-but predetermined conclusion.  And that's why Dodd says Shakespeare was Bacon, others say he was Marlowe, still others de Vere, etc.  I think I've even heard he was a black woman!  There's more proof that Shakespeare was Shakespeare than there was that he was anyone else, which is why none of the skeptics agree on who he was, just on who he wasn't.



     
    More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com


    Offline Incredulous

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4115
    • Reputation: +5050/-251
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Eleison Comments - Hamlet equals Apostasy (no. 599)
    « Reply #8 on: January 08, 2019, 12:24:28 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • Attack me if you like, but I happen to believe what Dr. David Allen White has published about Shakespeare (S).

    Simply because his life story is so cool and coherently Catholic.

    Just a few points from memory:

    1. S's father was a fine leather goods maker and at one time documented to be the Mayor of Stratford.
        Stratford was noted for being very Catholic and having the annual "Passion Play". This was S's early intro into plays & theater.
        Dad abruptly disappears from the town meeting logs and appears to have been arrested for being Catholic.

    2. S was teenager around the time of St. Edmond Campion and was aware of his arrest, torture and execution.

    3. S goes to London as a closet Catholic and has success writing plays and eventually helping to write the King James Bible,

    4. Dr. White makes the analogy that S's play have  the categorical quality of the Joyful, Sorrowful and Glorious
        Mysteries of the Rosary.
        S's servant makes the claim to a peer that Master Shakespeare never has to erase a mistake in written verse.
        His extensive works, vocabulary and genius appear to be actually inspired by the Holy Ghost.

    5. S retires and leaves London, for Stratford, but surprisingly joins a group taking on a London house mortgage?
        It is determined that the home is actually a secret "Mass House" for clandestine Catholic priests traveling through the city.

    6. S gets sick and dies after a nice night out with friends over dinner & drinks.
        The local Stratford protestant bishop accuses him in private correspondence of being a papist

    7. S's grave is sealed by his friends with a curse to deter anyone from exhuming his body.
        It's suspected he was buried with Catholic Sacramentals, such as his Scapular.
        Much later, S's last will & testament is found under a roof tile at his home explaining that he's Catholic.
        A common practice under the protestant persecutions.



    "Some preachers will keep silence about the truth, and others will trample it underfoot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days Our Lord Jesus Christ will send them not a true Pastor but a destroyer."  St. Francis of Assisi

    Offline roscoe

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6979
    • Reputation: +414/-172
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Eleison Comments - Hamlet equals Apostasy (no. 599)
    « Reply #9 on: January 08, 2019, 01:13:40 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • ' which was driving him [Shakespeare] to despair because he was a devout Catholic.' --- +W

    That is, if Shakespeare was William Shaksper, a subject that has fascinated many over the years.

    Having read Alfred Dodd's Francis Bacon's Personal Life Story (Rider & Co, 1949) I no longer do, for Dodd shows evidence that Shakespeare was Sir Francis Bacon, and he was no Catholic.

    William Shaksper of Stratford, Dodd reveals, was an illiterate groom who went to London to seek his fortune. There he set up a trade in holding and feeding the horses for the gentry as they attended the Globe Playhouse. Bacon, who had contacts with the theatre’s owner, and who often attended plays held there, met and made it his business to know Bill Shaksper for his name appealed to the esoterically minded Bacon. With a little adjustment he saw that this name could be tailored into the title for an author who would ‘shake the sphere (world)’ or the ‘spear-shaker,’ a reference to the tradition of the woman depicted with the helmet in a martial stance and shaking the spear of wisdom at the serpent of ignorance. This same woman was known to the Greeks as Pallas Athene and to the Romans as Minerva, a statue of which can be found even in the Vatican itself. This is the Gnostic Freemasonic profaning of Genesis 3:15, the ‘woman’ of Genesis, that divine promise revealed to man in the Scriptures in the wake of the fall and which became manifested as the Virgin Mary standing on the Earth with her foot on the serpent’s head. This reversion to restrained paganism and anti-Catholic ethos in contemporary writings, Martin Gwynne [sedevacantist] concludes, is to be found widespread throughout the works of Shakespeare.[1]

    [1] M. Gwynne: Baconiana; The Francis Bacon Society Inc., December 1992.

    Next the reasons for Bacon’s anonymous authorship of Shakespeare’s works:

    ‘The Reformation did nothing to aid free thought…Puritans and Romanists alike were united in their persecution of philosophy and their hatred of secular knowledge for the common people…‘Ever since Italy had been darkened by the shadow of the Inquisition, men had begun to devise means to communicate with each other, and with their public, in a style which should be intelligible to themselves without giving offence to Rome. Open revolt was impossible. They matched their wits against their persecutors and were able to say pretty nearly what they liked by a system of disguised writing. The use of double writing in serious literature was the only method of free expression open to men of letters…to write in such a manner that the authorities might assume their doctrines to be orthodox while the public for whom it was designed might readily perceive its real drift. Except by resort to this old and time-honoured device, the spirit of independent thought would have perished altogether.’[1]    

    [1] Gertrude Leigh: Passing of Beatrice, p.X, quoted by Dodd, op. cit., p.27.


    The hard fact is that there is no evidence at all to show that the peasant born William Shaksper that is now accredited with the works named after him is in fact their author. If one believes that commoner Shaksper alone, without any inspiration from high or low was capable of such a feat as depicted in the all-embracing worlds of Shakespeare, then one will believe anything. Of all the supposed writers of Shakespeare, only Bacon fits this mould, for he was of royal blood, lived in its environment, had the intellect, the esoteric Hermetic background, the understanding, the education and experience, the talent, the wealth, the occupation and authority to access the information, travelled a lot, and above all, had the motive and means to pen the vast and ingenious works of Shakespeare. Bacon’s knowledge of Hermetic, neo-Platonic and cabbalistic teaching appears by way of certain Rosicrucian themes found in Shakespeare’s As You Like It; Love’s Labour Lost; Venus and Adonis; and his Sonnets.

    ‘In Bacon’s New Atlantis we have a vision of a science ruled by sages of Solomon’s House (Magi) and the Father of Solomon’s house rides in a chariot surmounted by a golden sun. It is possible that the character of Berowne in Shakespeare’s Love’s Labour’s Lost is based on Bruno perhaps also the two pedants, Don Armado and Holofernes, who are the foils of the lovers. Some of the rituals connected with Masonry may be derived from the Hermetic writings, and Mozart’s Magic Flute that is, concerned with Freemasonry as a temple of Osiris and Egyptian priests.’[1]  

    Shakespeare is also awash with such propaganda, symbols, allegory, coded messages and innuendos. For example, in the Comedy of Errors Act V, sc., I:

    ‘DUKE: One of these men is Genius to the other; and so of these: which is the natural man, and which is the spirit? Who deciphers them?’

    The ‘Genius’ is of course Francis Bacon himself, and he goes on to tease the world in his Shakespeare’s ‘Comedy of Errors’ by asking who is the natural son and who is the spiritual Son, profaning the Lord Jesus when He asked the Pharisees: ‘What do you think of the Christ? Whose son is He,’ (Matt.22:42). Here Jesus was trying to draw out of them a recognition of the fact that He is the Spiritual Sonship as revealed in the opening sentence of the New Testament, where in the Melchisedech sense of (Ps 109:4) He is termed a Son of David, in contra-distinction to David’s natural son and successor Solomon in whose name the rival ‘Allegorical Temple’ was/is being built. This distinction is of such grave import that the very reality of the two kinds of sonship forms the martial backdrop to the allegory key that the former Pharisee-Adept Saul would later as Paul give to the Galatians (4:24). This affront is repeated in the inscription on the Shakespeare Monument at Stratford:

    ‘Why goest thou by so fast? Read, if thou canst,
                             WHOM envious Death hath plast within this Monument.’

    In other words, “Whom do men say that I am?”[2] Now why the need for a riddle if Shaksper from Stratford is indeed the great author? No, for what we are dealing with here is a man who would even mimic Christ all the while remaining invisible so as to be able to operate unhindered by criticism or impediment, thus demonstrating his occult loyalty to the esotericism of Hermetic Socinianism and Rosicrucianism. Now recall: ‘Masonry must be felt everywhere, but must be found nowhere.’

    [1] J. Trusted: Physics and Metaphysics: Routledge, 1991, p.40.
    [2] A. Dodd: Francis Bacon’s Personal Life-Story p.23.

    I believe Shakespeare himself gives the game away when he acts totally out of character by his vicious attack on the integrity of (St) Joan of Arc in his play Henry VI, treating the English as having ‘God as our fortress’ and the French as being one with the ‘witches and the help of hell’ (Act.II, Sc.1) and ‘Devil, or devil's dam’ (1:5). ‘In 1576 Queen Elizabeth packed the young Bacon up and personally shipped him off to France. She wanted him to spy on foreign governments and officials in the same capacity as John Dee.’[1] The likes of Bacon would be very well aware that Joan la Puchelle was used by God in this war of Principalities and Powers. Consequently, whereas he was a man able to engage and parry as equal with anyone from King to the most lowly wretch, all of whom are manifested in the writings of Shakespeare, he could not contain himself when making reference to a superior on the Melchisedech field of combat, the soldier of Christ, Joan of Arc, now a saint, whom Diana Vaughan was pleased to invoke in her conflict against her former colleagues in proto-Freemasonry.

    ‘In the first part of [Shakespeare’s] Henry the Sixth, Jeanne d’Arc addresses the Duke of Burgundy in a speech of thirty-three lines. This speech is an absolutely faithful version of a letter in France written by the Maid of Orleans to the then Duke of Burgundy and dated July 17th, 1429. There is no historical authority for this letter which never saw the light of print till discovered by the Historian of the house of Burgundy in 1780. Bacon in his travels might easily have seen this letter [and certainly necver read by William Shaksper, the ilerate groom from Stratford]: in fact the author of this play must have done so. [Shaksper] was never within miles of it.’[2]

    [1] Richard Allan Wagner: The Truth about Freemasons, 2015.
    [2] Walter Ellis’s The Shakespeare Myth, Bacon Society, 1937.

    There is of course lots more to do with Shakespeare and Catholicism, but the above will give some food for thought.
    Bacon was Not Shakespeare, who wrote at a time when the slightest Catholic sentiment could result in execution. :chef:
    There Is No Such Thing As 'Sede Vacantism'...
    nor is there such thing as a 'Feeneyite' or 'Feeneyism'

    Offline hollingsworth

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2225
    • Reputation: +2424/-252
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Eleison Comments - Hamlet equals Apostasy (no. 599)
    « Reply #10 on: January 08, 2019, 11:52:34 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0


  • Quote
    That elephant is England’s apostasy from the Catholic Faith which was being hammered home by the English government when Shakespeare wrote the play, around 1600 AD, and which was driving him to despair because he was a devout Catholic. So (1) Hamlet is the most puzzling of his plays for the mass of post-Catholic readers or theatre-goers or critics who have no inkling of the “Reformation” as being the greatest disaster ever to befall England.


     
    I would like to think that this EC has anything at all to do with my traditional Catholic faith, or that it might impact, somehow, the “Resistance,” which this site seems to support. But, alas, I come up empty. What does the tragedy of the English Reformation have to do with the ongoing situation of the virtual collapse of the Roman Church? Why should I care that the play Hamlet may be a coded thesbian reaction to this event, or that Shakespeare might have been a devout Catholic, or that the character Hamlet may have been a Catholic, all in a knot over the tragedy of the Reformation? Why should I care at this point whether Shakespeare was Catholic, or that, per chance, he may have really been Francis Bacon or Christopher Marlowe, or God knows who else? How may England’s apostasy have fed into the present moment of Roman apostasy, or may have contributed to the decline leading ultimately to Vatican II? I’m losing the thread.


     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16