Threat of Catholic Succession, and Other Shapiro Excerpts

While I was unsure when we first began reading Shapiro's book, I have enjoyed the readings we have done recently. It is nice to have a little bit of insight into Shakespeare's world. These insights help me to make sense of Shakespeare's work, since he appears to incorporate a lot of historical refrences into his writing.

One of the most intriguing sections for me was in chapter 8, where Shapiro discusses the problems caused by Queen Elizabeth's lack of a heir. There was a lot of commotion over who would succeed, as Shapiro writes:

Once it was clear that Elizabethwas not going to marr or bear children, her
advisers were worried enough about the possibility of Catholic succession to
fall back upon quasi-republican positions to ensure Protestant rule.
Elizabeth had to be offended by what their argument implied: that the people and not just their monarch had a say in such matters. (Shapiro 139)

What interests me so much about this passage is the relationship between Catholics and Protestants during Shakespeare's life. It intrigues me that there was such a controversy or dislike between the two sects that they would choose a "quasi-republican" government over a monarchy, to make sure Protestants still rule. While I cannot imagine how bad the tensions would have been during Shakespeare's time, I have experienced the contrast between Catholics and Protestants that exist in England today. When I traveled to England during high school, it was during Lent (a time of the year when Catholics are not allowed to eat meat on Fridays). On Friday, the tour guide set up the menu to include chicken. When I asked for a vegetarian option, even though I had told her I would eat chicken, she was frustrated and said that I should have seen it coming, and not put down chicken at all. It is interesting to me that the differences and dislike between Catholics and Protestants continues today, although certainly not at the same levels of Shakespeare's time.

Another excerpt from Shapiro's book that interested me was the discussion of political assassination, and why it was so feared. According to Shapiro's text, political assassinations were considered great threats because these actions "could not be predicted or controlled" (Shapiro 144). Shaprio continues:

Assassination was linked with chaos, bloodletting, and potential civil war
because this was what in inariably led to. However noble Brutus' motives,
howevver morally and politically justified, it would have been clear to many in
Shakespeare's audience that he hadn't thought things through. Critics who
fault Julius Caesar for being a broken-backed play, who are
disappointed by the final two acts, and who feel that the assassination takes
place too early in the action, fail to understand that the two parts of the
play--the events leading up to the assassination and the bloody evil strife that
follow--go hand in hand. (Shapiro 144)

To be perfectly honest, until I read this chapter of Shapiro's book, I was one of the "critics" who felt that the final two acts didn't match the preceeding ones (144). I was confused by the rapid switch from assassination and murder plots to a civil war where almost all characters die. However, Shapiro's discussion of political assassination makes the entire play more cohesive in my mind.