#so they knew where it is and their friends are part of the anglican parish there and they are going to email with details

[keendaanmaa]

⛪

[46ten]

AH and Peter Lavien connections, part 1

Engrossed by our own immediate concerns, I omitted telling you of a disagreeable piece of intelligence I have received from a gentleman of Georgia. He tells me of the death of my brother Levine. You know the circumstances that abate my distress, yet my heart acknowledges the rights of a brother. He dies rich, but has disposed of the bulk of his fortune to strangers. I am told he has left me a legacy. I did not inquire how much.  AH to EH, [1782]

From Allan McLane Hamilton’s Intimate Life, and as far as I know, the letter itself (and the rest of the text) has not been found/copied.

As most know, Peter Lavien was AH’s half-brother, the son of Rachel Faucette and her first (and only) husband, John Michael Lavien. Thanks to the 1759 divorce decree (making AH and full-brother James illegitimate forevermore), Peter inherited her entire estate upon her death. Peter had moved to South Carolina in the 1760s, but briefly returned to St. Croix in 1769 to settle his mother’s estate. According to Peter Lavien’s 1778 last Will and Testament: “I give and bequeath to Alexander Hamilton and his brother Robert Hamilton (as the Testator believes)  [?! - Peter clearly knew of one brother more than the other!] each one hundred and fifty pounds sterling” (cited by Michael E. Newton in AH: The Formative Years from the Papers of John Kean.)

We know the date of the above letter is prior to Oct 1782 based on a letter to Nathanael Greene (below), but 1782 doesn’t quite make sense to me - AH was in Albany with EH from Nov 1781-Nov 1782. It seems far more likely to me that this letter dates from the July-Oct 1781 period, especially with mention of “immediate concerns” (wartime). Most interesting to me is that people knew AH’s half-brother was Peter Lavien and AH should be informed of his death. This also implies that AH’s background and family situation was fairly common knowledge (as I feel I have argued constantly).

Let’s go to the 12Oct1782, AH to Nathanael Greene letter:

I take the liberty to inclose you a letter to Mr. Kane Executor to the estate of Mr. Lavine, a half brother of mine who died some time since in South Carolina. Capt Roberts, if you should not be acquainted with him, can inform you who he is. I shall be much obliged to you to have my letter carefully forwarded.

(AH is writing from Albany, we presume - the letter that LOC has and Founders features is a copy of the original letter, and I’ve talked enough about the letter transcription issue so I’m not going to repeat it here. And BTW, the Kean family name is pronounced Kane with a long a, not Keen with a long e, so AH isn’t entirely wrong to spell it Kane, how he had likely heard it pronounced.) 

It’s unclear when Peter Lavien died. One source cites both 1780 and 1781 (The History of Beaufort County, South Carolina: 1514-1861 by Lawrence Sanders Rowland, Alexander Moore, George C. Rogers, Stephen R. Wise, Gerhard Spieler), although it’s consistent that he died in Savannah, Chatham County, Georgia. According to Newton, he died prior to March 1781, based on a newspaper record (pg 534 of Formative Years.) Although a wife is referenced in his will, I can find no further mention of that, but I can find a daughter, Joanna Lavien, whom he lived with in Savannah. She was married to João Carlos Lucena...

...a Portuguese born marrano, a new Christian, born into a family that may have continued being secretly Jewish since the 16th century.  If so their religion did not survive the family move from Portugal in 1761 to the then British colonies in North America, initially at Rhode Island where his father was granted a patent for the production of Castile soap.  The family eventually settled in Savanah where he married Joanna Lavien, the daughter of a prominent Jewish West India merchant [46ten notes: Newton has done tons of research on this point and can find no evidence that the Laviens were ever Jewish. Peter was christened in St. Croix as an adult.]. Joanna’s father left her extensive estates in South Carolina and Georgia in his will but these were confiscated when John Charles, as he was now known, remained loyal to the British crown in the American revolution. By the 1790’s John Charles was in London where he became the Portuguese Consul. In 1791 he married again, in Hampstead, to Mary Ann Lancaster (he had become a practising Anglican whilst in America) with whom he had four children.  He died in 1813 was buried at St Pancras Old Church.  He died a wealthy man, leaving an estate worth over £100,000.  https://thelondondead.blogspot.com/2016/11/how-to-rise-in-society-housemaids-tale.html

John Charles (anglicized) and Joanna went to Europe following her father’s death.  

From The History of Beaufort..., above: 

[Peter] Lavien and [Captain Samuel] Grove were considered the largest indigo shippers in the Beaufort District (SC). Lavien became prominent in Beaufort and was selected for the vestry of St. Helena Parish despite the fact that his father, John Lavien, was one of the prominent Jewish [NO!] merchants and planters in the Danish West Indies. The Revolution disrupted the firm’s trade and Lavien’s partner died at sea in 1775. Lavien then became Beaufort’s most prominent smuggler early in the Revolutionary War. Family and business connections, and political hostility, forced Lavien to move to Savannah in 1777....Lavien had left his property in the hands of [Grove’s] stepson, John Kean, who was a consistent patriot [and also served as executor of Grove’s sizable estate]...Lavien’s will divided his large estate between the Lucenas of Savannah and John Kean of Beaufort. The Lucenas remained loyal to the crown, and most of their Georgia property was confiscated....

John Kean (1756-1795) had apprenticed as a bookkeeper for Lavien, rising to the position of “copartner.” He auctioned off Lavien’s remaining property, including “fifty-five valuable slaves, chiefly country born, some plantation tools, horses, etc.” (Newton, Formative Years, pg 535, sourcing several newspaper articles). An inheritor of both his step-father’s and former boss’s estates, Kean became SC delegate to the Continental Congress. In 1786, he moved to NYC and began working with the the mercantile firm of LeRoy, Bayard, and Company - yes, the firm of William Bayard Jr, whose home AH would die in. In August 1789, GW appointed Kean as a commissioner for settling accounts between the United States and the individual states. See Commissioners for Settling Accounts to GW, 21 July 1790, n.1. Founders notes: “Oliver Wolcott, Jr., hoped that Kean would be named auditor (see Lear to GW, 23 June), and Peter Van Brugh Livingston [Kean’s father-in-law] wrote GW from Elizabethtown, N.J., on 1 June “in behalf of my Friend Mr John Kean, whose losses by three recent Insolvencies have been very considerable, as the office he now enjoys by your favor is like to be of no long Duration, that your Excellency would be pleased to confer on him one more permanent,” specifically, the comptrollership (DLC:GW). GW appointed Kean to neither office, and Kean resigned from the board of commissioners in October to become Cashier of the Bank of the United States (see Kean to GW, 31 October).”

Thus, the former apprentice, executor, and inheritor to Peter Lavien’s estate (and may have gotten a portion of Rachel’s estate too) winds up in a position where he is in constant communication with Lavien’s half-brother AH. Strange, huh? It gets better! Part 2 to come. 

[laura-elizabeth91]

"Theresa May's Style: Put Your Head Down and Get to Work" By STEVEN ERLANGER for the New York Times JULY 13, 2016 LONDON — Her beloved father, an Anglican vicar, died in a car crash when she was 25, after she had been married only a year, and her mother, who had multiple sclerosis, died a few months later. For Theresa May, a cherished only child, the shock was devastating. It brought her even closer to her husband, Philip, two years younger, whom she had met at Oxford, at a Conservative Party disco. They bonded over cricket and silly university debates, like the one where Philip induced her to speak for the motion “That sex is good… but success is better.” Both became bankers, and Ms. May threw herself into the Conservative politics that had entranced her since the age of 12, when she liked to argue with her father and he asked her, in order to maintain neutrality in his parish, not to parade her Tory colors in public. “Politics captured me,” Ms. May said in 2014. “That sounds terribly trite,” she said, but “I wanted to make a difference, I wanted to be part of the debate.” On Wednesday, Ms. May, 59, became Britain’s prime minister, the last adult standing after other senior members of her party — the clever younger men from Britain’s elite schools, like her predecessor, David Cameron — schemed each other out of contention. For Ms. May, only Britain’s second female prime minister, it is a job she never publicly acknowledged wanting, until Mr. Cameron, bluff and self-confident, pushed his luck once too often,lost the referendum on keeping Britain in the European Union and quit. Ms. May, who had been home secretary, is considered “a safe pair of hands,” not flashy and even dull, who seems to be a candidate of continuity. But the country’s dire circumstances may demand more. And Ms. May, a traditional economic and social conservative in many respects, has signaled a desire to give her party a new focus on the need to build a fairer society. With Britain deeply divided over its decision to leave the European Union, its place in the world in flux, its unity threatened by calls for Scottish independence and its economy at risk, the times may require that Ms. May be both steady and bold. Her six-year tenure at the Home Office showed her to be a tough operator and put her in charge of a number of flash-point issues. She demanded police reforms to reduce racial profiling. She helped push through surveillance policies that had to balance fears of terrorism against civil liberties and confronted public pressure to reduce immigration, failing to meet government targets for doing so. If sometimes at odds with Mr. Cameron’s inner circle — she was a quiet critic of the government’s budget austerity — she nonetheless built a reputation as smart and competent. Damian Green, who worked for her as Home Office minister until 2014, said that “Theresa doesn’t do verbiage, doesn’t do speeches for the sake of making speeches. One of her virtues is that when she says something today she means it tomorrow.” But she will have to bind a badly torn party in which she has won esteem but few close friends. She will also have to juggle competing priorities in negotiating the withdrawal from the European Union under the watchful eye of Brexit supporters who remain wary of her commitment to their cause. Even though she publicly if tepidly supported remaining in Europe out of loyalty to Mr. Cameron, saying it would be best for the nation’s security, at heart “she is a Euroskeptic,” said Catherine Meyer, a former treasurer of the Conservative Party and a friend of the Mays’. “When she says Brexit means out, she means it.” While respected within the European Union as a tough and unpretentious negotiator, Ms. May will have to find the right balance between more controls on immigration that the voters demanded and at least partial access, if she can manage it, to the single market of the European Union. Friends say that her early religious upbringing — she is an Anglican but went to a Roman Catholic school — has given Ms. May a moral base, a steady personality and a feeling for the disadvantaged. “Her background has shaped her into somebody who is not going to feel sorry for herself or blame others for her mistakes, and who finds solace in moving forward, not to sit but to fight,” said Ms. Meyer, who worked with Ms. May on a charity for abducted children. A young woman who hunched her shoulders at school to seem less tall has grown into a proud master of her responsibilities. She lives for her work and her husband, a well-off investment banker, and their time together in their neat house in Sonning-on-Thames, in Berkshire, in the heart of her Maidenhead constituency, a village she shares with better-known types like the guitarist Jimmy Page and George and Amal Clooney. She likes to cook and owns more than 100 cookbooks, and will likely be glad that the Camerons took the heat for remodeling the ancient kitchen at 10 Downing Street. Mr. Cameron valued her workaholic talents, naming her Home Office secretary, one of the four senior cabinet posts, only the second woman to hold the job. Wary of her quiet ambition and wanting to protect his own favorite, George Osborne, the chancellor of the Exchequer, he never promoted her further. But he did not demote her, either, even as she failed to deliver on one of the government’s key pledges, to curb immigration. She was famous for fighting her corner, knowing her subject and keeping clear of the Cameron “chumocracy.” Ms. May is polite but not chummy, works late and does not hang around Parliament’s bars. Her lack of a “set of friends” was considered one of her great liabilities in the race to succeed Mr. Cameron, said Crispin Blunt, a Conservative member of Parliament who is one of her supporters. “There wasn’t an army of mates for her,” he said, but it allows her now to make appointments to her government on the basis of her own priorities and assessments. “In government, sometimes it’s difficult to be a woman surrounded by lots of men,” said Ms. Meyer. “Like Margaret Thatcher, she likes the company of men, but she’s capable of putting her fist down.” Ms. May was co-founder in 2005 of a group called “Women2Win,” to elect more women to Parliament and then nurture them, something that Mrs. Thatcher, the first woman to lead Britain, was often criticized for failing to do. In office, Ms. May has been rigorous, largely sticking to her brief, which she knew in depth, and not often consulting cabinet colleagues. One former minister, Kenneth Clarke, called her “a bloody difficult woman,” a description she embraced. She tends to work alone or with a small number of aides, like Fiona Hill and Nick Timothy, and has a tendency to micromanage, a senior civil servant said, asking anonymity. After two failed attempts, she was elected to Parliament in 1997. In 2002, when chosen to chair the party, Ms. May gave a speech about the need to reach out to the less fortunate. “Our base is too narrow and so, occasionally, are our sympathies,” she said. “You know what some people call us? The nasty party. I know that’s unfair, you know that’s unfair, but it’s the people out there that we have to convince.” In 2014, she again earned attention for taking on the powerful police union, the Police Federation, limiting “stop and search” because of racial bias and imposing elected oversight commissions on the police. To a stunned conference of police, shesaid: “The federation was created by an act of Parliament and it can be reformed by an act of Parliament. If you do not change of your own accord we will impose change on you.” Among her most controversial acts was helping to push through a so-called “snooper’s charter,” giving the police and security services new powers in a world of digital communications and terrorism. After criticism that the measure impinged too much on civil liberties and individual rights, she agreed to some changes. Ms. May has been compared to Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany – both daughters of Protestant clergymen, both with quiet, private husbands, both without children, both hardworking and rather distant. Ms. May clearly sees the similarities, including being underestimated by men. “If you look at somebody like Angela Merkel and think of what she’s actually achieved, you know, there are still people who don’t rate her, are a bit dismissive, perhaps because of the way she looks and dresses,” Ms. May said in a 2012 interview with the Daily Telegraph. “What matters is, what has she actually done? And, when you look at her abilities in terms of negotiation, and steering Germany through a difficult time, then hats off to her.” She has only rarely spoken publicly about her personal life, though it briefly became a campaign issue when one of her challengers, Angela Leadsom, seemed to suggest that she had a greater stake in Britain’s future because she has children and Ms. May does not. “You look at families all the time and you see there is something there that you don’t have,” Ms. May said in the 2012 interview with The Daily Telegraph, when asked about not having children. “You accept the hand life deals you.” Ms. May took the same attitude to her diagnosis of diabetes, for which she said she gave herself four injections a day. “Just get on and deal with it,” she said. She has made a calculated effort to show some inner life and spark by her choice of clothes, especially her kitten-heeled animal-print shoes, which the British press chronicles avidly. “You can be clever and like clothes,” she has said. “One of the challenges for women in politics is to be ourselves.” When asked on Desert Island Discs what single novel she wanted as a castaway, she answered, “Pride and Prejudice.” And her single luxury? “A lifetime subscription to Vogue.”

[christinaepilzauthor-blog]

The True Will Shakespeare

by Linda Fetterly Root

A comparison of the three earliest portraits, compiled by Stratford Brice from Public Domain Art- Wikimedia

The faces of William Shakespeare The three earliest portraits of Will Shakespeare are compared above. The first two were likely painted while he lived and the third was used when his first Folio was published. All three portraits are ante-dated by the sculpted image at Shakespeare's burial site in Trinity Church, shown below. A Man of Natural Talent or a Ghostwriter? I realize there are otherwise credible people who deny the Holocaust, the moon landing, the existence of the historical Jesus, and the assassination of JFK by Lee Harvey Oswald. Most of them are motivated by a political point-of-view compatible with their belief structure. I find no such justification for questioning the contribution to world literature by a guy named William Shakespeare. This does not mean other writers might not have contributed to his works. But does anyone claim Jim Henson did not create the Muppets simply because a second inventive genius named Frank Oz was involved? In treating the question, it would be disingenuous of me to claim the insight of the many distinguished thinkers who have raised the point: Freud, Samuel Clemons, and Helen Keller, to name a few, but their acknowledge genius does not make them right. Some of the disclaimers are based on mathematical analysis of word use and structure, others on principles of linguistics or the viewpoints expressed in the plays. Mine is simplistic and based on what we do know about Shakespeare, and what I know about the nature of writers. 

Shakespeare was real

Those disclaiming Shakespeare's authorship of his many plays do not go so far as to claim there was no such person as William Shakespeare, the young man from Stratford-on-Avon. There is no question a merchant named John Shakespeare and his wealthy wife Mary Arden gave birth to a son named William, who was baptized by that name on April 26, 1564, at Trinity Church in Stratford-on-Avon. The custom of the times would suggest the ceremony occurred approximately three days after birth, which is why April 23rd is accepted as Shakespeare's birthday. Below is the record of John Shakespeare's son William's baptism.

While some doubters stress the paucity of information about Shakespeare's early years to question the authenticity of his achievements, that is not the case when one factors in the profile of his father. John Shakespeare was politically active at the rural level, with ties to Midland England's aristocratic families including the Catesbys and probably the Treshams and Vauxes. At one time he was the Bailiff of Stratford—in modern terms, its mayor, a position unlikely to have been awarded to a highly visible recusant.

The restored family home on Henley Street, Stratford-on-Avon

At the time of Shakespeare's birth, his father was probably what was called a closet Catholic—those who gave the outward appearance of embracing Anglicanism, but embraced the auld religion in the privacy of the home. His wife Mary Arden was Protestant and came from a wealthy family. She gave birth to eight children, five of whom survived into adulthood. William Shakespeare probably attended the parish school in Stratford, which kept no surviving records. Some writers presume he was home schooled, but that is unlikely. While there was no compulsory education in early modern England, there were penalties imposed for homeschooling to avoid the curricula of parish churches, and until 1762, it was against the law for Catholics to teach. In addition, the prevailing evidence indicates both of his parents were illiterate. That single fact has been used to attack Shakespeare's authorship of the large body of literature published in his name, but it confuses literacy with intellect. Literate or not, Shakespeare's father was a civic leader. Snitterfield, the village where John Shakespeare grew to adulthood, had no parish school, but Stratford did. In all accounts, John Shakespeare was a successful designer/fabricator of leather gloves and headgear, with more than an average dose of entrepreneurship. He did, however, suffer an economic set-back possibly associated with his association with his Catholic leanings, or because his real estate investments were lucrative, but his other money lending was not, and at one point he had been charged and fined for usury. He became reclusive and ceased attending counsel meetings. Some writers state he was rehabilitated before his death, but by that time, his son William had acquired considerable wealth and influence, and may have been responsible for his father being granted a Coat of Arms which Shakespeare himself later used.

Sketch of the Schoolhouse at Stratford (PD Art)

Shakespeare was influenced by historical and religious events, consistent with themes expressed in his poetry and plays John Shakespeare and William Catesby, father of the leader of the Gunpowder conspirators, were both dignitaries in their separate Midland communities and were friends. On one occasion, both appeared on the same list of those who had been fined by the Protestant church hierarchy for missing mandatory services. Both families had ties to the nascent Jesuit mission to England launched by the priests Edmund Campion and his Jesuit superior, Fr. Robert Persons. Shortly after their arrival, the priests traveled to the Midlands, a hotbed of recusancy and Counter-Reformation sentiment. Father Campion likely stayed in the Catesby home, a mere 18 miles from Stratford-on-Avon. Persons is believed to have stayed with the Shakespeares.[1] There is evidence the two Jesuits distributed copies of a document to the recusants who harbored them. It was designed to be used as a model Spiritual Will and constituted a declaration of its testator's abiding Catholic Faith. A handwritten copy signed by John Shakespeare and believed to be, for the most part, genuine was found in the rafters of one of William Shakespeare's houses in 1757, although the first two provisions were likely forged by the man named Jordan who discovered them. Unfortunately, the entire document was later lost. Only it's translation survives.[2] Some historians use the materials concerning John Shakespeare as proof his famous son William knew the later martyred and Canonized Edmund Campion personally, but while it is possible, it is speculative. Shakespeare would have been a child at the time. What is apparent is Shakespeare's youthful exposure to the English Catholic cause and thought which surely shaped his works. During his career, Shakespeare demonstrated the ability to treat issues in a provocative manner nevertheless inoffensive to his sovereign.

The lack of record does not mean Shakespeare was uneducated

One argument against Shakespeare as the likely author of his plays is a lack of education, a highly Charlatan point of view fed by its companion argument raising the lack of historical record of his youth. Each argument feeds the other, and neither considers what I consider to be a highly salient fact: in Shakespeare's day, a Catholic education was illegal. It is likely that a child born of a recusant family might be overlooked in a rural schoolhouse, but those who advanced to England's few universities were vetted and culled. This does not mean there were no highly educated Elizabethan Catholics, but those who were had been educated abroad. The prime mover of the Gunpowder plot, Robert Catesby, attended nearby Oxford but dropped out rather than sign the Oath of Supremacy demanded of university graduates. Had Shakespeare been sent to Oxford, he would have faced the same obstacle. As stated above, homeschooling was a criminal offense. Also, Shakespeare's parents did not have the expertise to teach, but once the Jesuits appeared in the Midlands during Shakespeare's early adolescence, it would not have been that difficult to place an educated priest or layman tutor in the home under the guise of a footman or a stablemaster. Before his father's financial problems arose, the Shakespeare household could have afforded one. Other Midlanders such as the female recusant Eliza Roper, the Dowager Lady Vaux, held her own when interrogated by men like Lord Robert Cecil and his henchman Coke when suspected of harboring the much-sought-after Hunted Priest [3]John Gerard, and survived to establish a clandestine Jesuit boys' school at the family estate at Great Harrowden .There is evidence the Wizard Earl of Northumberland intended to establish a similar school in the courtyard at Warkworth Castle. We cannot eliminate Will Shakespeare and the author of plays like Lear simply because he did not make his way to Oxford. Nor would he have been ignorant of the dramatic form. Not only were plays written in Latin, a part of the grammar school curriculum at parish schools like the one in Stratford, but during Shakespeare's youth, aldermen issued licenses to more than twenty traveling theatrical companies [4] . And while It is tempting to confuse the terms educated and smart, even in modern times, such assumptions invite mistake. Think of John Steinbeck packing his duffel and leaving Stanford. Ben Franklin was homeschooled, and Ben Affleck dropped out of both the University of Vermont and Occidental College. Ever hear of a guy named Bill Gates? Frank Lloyd Wright? No one accuses self-taught Abraham Lincoln of having hired a ghostwriter to draft the Gettysburg address[5]. Look at your own life and think about gifted people you have encountered and ask yourself how many of them did not acquire their genius in a classroom.

What about William Shakespeare's early history? 

From the china cabinet of Linda Root, photo by the author

To illustrate the weakness of the argument of those who find insufficient evidence of Shakespeare's potential because of the lack of documents from his youth, I entered the name of the most famous of my grammar school classmates into several search engines, and did not find enough information to distinguish him from others of the same name, although he has served as head of a federal financial entity. Next, I tried the same with the most successful graduate of my high school class and was overwhelmed by posting and videos, but none which dated back to his youth and early successes and failures. Why should we demand more of William Shakespeare than we do of Ron Rosenfeld or Dan Spinazzola? With Shakespeare, images of his birthplace, the site of his christening, and the houses of his mother, Mary Arden and his wife, Anne Hathaway can be found in the dinnerware in my credenza. We know William Shakespeare married Anne Hathaway and they raised three children in Stratford-on-Avon, where his family remained when he moved to London. Details as to how he amassed his moderate fortune are sketchy, but hardly to the point to justify labeling his life as a husband and father living in rural England as 'Lost Years.' While there are several plausible stories as to what might have lured Shakespeare into the theater, and thus, to London, all of them are speculative. The fact, however, is he went, and by the time he arrived, he already had a reputation as an actor and fledgling playwright sufficiently widespread for a presumably jealous colleague, successful and prolific author Robert Greene, to call him an 'upstart crow'.[6] ,[7] What Greene did not call him was a plagiarizer. Robert Greene was not a fan of his youthful rival. He wrote his contemporary dramatists and begged them to put the upstart in his place. He may have thought Shakespeare's early works borrowed heavily on extant histories, but he never accused Shakespeare of putting his name to works penned by colleagues. The informative book, The Drama: Its History, Literature and Influence on Civilization, vol 13, ed. Alfred Bates, London, Historical Publishing Company, 1906, pp. 104-107 makes a compelling case for Shakespeare's authorship of his plays by referring to Robert Greene's acerbic criticism, written shortly before Greene's death in 1592 in critiques approaching the polemic. In The Drama, Bates make the following point concerning Shakespeare's productivity during the years prior to the bard's arrival in London only a year before his detractor's death:

'Even in his wrath, however, Greene bears eloquent witness to Shakespeare's diligence, ability and success, both as actor and playwright. Of Shakespeare's amazing industry, and also of his success, there is ample evidence. Within six or seven years he not only produced the brilliant, reflective and descriptive poems of Venus and Adonis and Lucrece but at least fifteen of his dramas, including tragedies, comedies and historical plays'.

In conclusion, an argument I find compelling is based on my experience as a writer and a former prosecutor: Shakespeare's contemporaries most often propounded as the true authors of his plays never raised their claim. Those of us who write or perform are a prideful lot. We also have acquired the gift of access to a public audience: in essence, we have Voice. Would Ben Johnson, Francis Bacon and Christopher Marlowe, all of whom have been nominated as the true Will Shakespeare have remained silent when their colleague from Stratford-on -Avon claimed their masterworks? Never.

Christopher Marloew

Sir Francis Bacon

Ben Johnson

The Stratford Bust, possibly taken from a death mask.

References: [1] Pearce, Joseph, The Quest for Shakespeare, Ignatius Press, 2008. [2] Roth, Steve, Hamlet: The Undiscovered Country, Open House, 2 edition (December 23, 2013)3. [3]Gerard, John. S.J., The Autobiography of a Hunted Priest (Translated from the Latin by Philip Caraman, S.J., Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1952 [4] Wikipedia, 'Shakespeare's Life: The Lost Years' [5] See https://despicablewonderfulyou.wordpress.com/2013/02/24/brilliant-minds-and-great-people-not-necessarily-with-a-college-degree/ [6] Robert Greene, Wikimedia, Shakespeare's Life: The Lord years, and ` http://www.theatrehistory.com The Drama; Its History, Literature and Influence on Civilization: British drama – Alfred Bates, James Penny Boyd, John Porter Lamberton [7] Bates, et al, Ibid.

~~~~~~~~~~ Linda Fetterly Root is a writer of historical fiction set in Marie Stuart's Scotland and Early Modern Britain. She is a retired major crimes prosecutor living in the Morongo Basin area of the Southern California hi-desert, on the edge of Joshua Tree National Park. She is a member of the Marie Stuart Society, the Historical Novel Society, and the Bars of California and the United States Supreme Court. William Shakespeare appears briefly in her current work-in-progress, The Deliverance of the Lamb, based upon the escape from England of flamboyant Jesuit John Gerard.

Hat Tip To: English Historical Fiction Authors

[catholicwatertown]

Pope: Catholics and Anglicans, brothers and sisters in Christ

(Vatican Radio) Pope Francis on Sunday visited the Anglican Parish of All Saints in Rome. Speaking at the Church the Pope said, "today, with gratitude to God, we recognize one another as we truly are: brothers and sisters in Christ, through our common baptism.  As friends and pilgrims we wish to walk the path together, to follow our Lord Jesus Christ together."

Find below the English translation of the Pope's words.

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

            I wish to thank you for your gracious invitation to celebrate this parish anniversary with you.  More than two hundred years have passed since the first public Anglican liturgy was held in Rome for a group of English residents in this part of the city.  A great deal has changed in Rome and in the world since then.  In the course of these two centuries, much has also changed between Anglicans and Catholics, who in the past viewed each other with suspicion and hostility.  Today, with gratitude to God, we recognize one another as we truly are: brothers and sisters in Christ, through our common baptism.  As friends and pilgrims we wish to walk the path together, to follow our Lord Jesus Christ together. 

            You have invited me to bless the new icon of Christ the Saviour.  Christ looks at us, and his gaze upon us is one of salvation, of love and compassion.  It is the same merciful gaze which pierced the hearts of the Apostles, who left the past behind and began a journey of new life, in order to follow and proclaim the Lord.  In this sacred image, as Jesus looks upon us, he seems also to call out to us, to make an appeal to us: “Are you ready to leave everything from your past for me?  Do you want to make my love known, my mercy?”

            His gaze of divine mercy is the source of the whole Christian ministry.  The Apostle Paul says this to us, through his words to the Corinthians which we have just heard.  He writes: “Having this ministry by the mercy of God, we do not lose heart” (2 Cor 4:1).  Our ministry flows forth from the mercy of God, which sustains our ministry and prevents it losing its vigour.

            Saint Paul did not always have an easy relationship with the community at Corinth, as his letters show.  There was also a painful visit to this community, with heated words exchanged in writing.  But this passage shows Paul overcoming past differences.  By living his ministry in the light of mercy received, he does not give up in the face of divisions, but devotes himself to reconciliation.  When we, the community of baptized Christians, find ourselves confronted with disagreements and turn towards the merciful face of Christ to overcome it, it is reassuring to know that we are doing as Saint Paul did in one of the very first Christian communities.

            How does Saint Paul grapple with this task, where does he begin?  With humility, which is not only a beautiful virtue, but a question of identity.  Paul sees himself as a servant, proclaiming not himself but Christ Jesus the Lord (v. 5).  And he carries out this service, this ministry according to the mercy shown him (v. 1): not on the basis of his ability, nor by relying on his own strength, but by trusting that God is watching over him and sustaining his weakness with mercy.  Becoming humble means drawing attention away from oneself, recognizing one’s dependence on God as a beggar of mercy: this is the starting point so that God may work in us.  A past president of the World Council of Churches described Christian evangelization as “a beggar telling another beggar where he can find bread”.  I believe Saint Paul would approve.  He grasped the fact that he was “fed by mercy” and that his priority was to share his bread with others: the joy of being loved by the Lord, and of loving him. 

            This is our most precious good, our treasure, and it is in this context that Paul introduces one of his most famous images, one we can all apply to ourselves:  “we have this treasure in earthen vessels” (v. 7).  We are but earthen vessels, yet we keep within us the greatest treasure in the world.  The Corinthians knew well that it was foolish to preserve something precious in earthen vessels, which were inexpensive but cracked easily.  Keeping something valuable in them meant running the risk of losing it.  Paul, a graced sinner, humbly recognized that he was fragile, just like an earthen vessel.  But he experienced and knew that it was precisely there that human misery opens itself to God’s merciful action; the Lord performs wonders.  That is how the “extraordinary power” of God works (v. 7).

          Trusting in this humble power, Paul serves the Gospel.  Speaking of some of his adversaries in Corinth, he calls them “super apostles” (2 Cor 12:11), perhaps, and with a certain irony, because they had criticized him for his weaknesses even as they considered themselves observant, even perfect.  Paul, on the other hand, teaches that only in realizing we are weak earthen vessels, sinners always in need of mercy, can the treasure of God be poured into us and through us upon others.  Otherwise, we will merely be full of our treasures, which are corrupted and spoiled in seemingly beautiful vessels.  If we recognize our weakness and ask for forgiveness, then the healing mercy of God will shine in us and will be visible to those outside; others will notice in some way, through us, the gentle beauty of Christ’s face.

            At a certain point, perhaps in the most difficult moment with the community in Corinth, the Apostle Paul cancelled a visit he had planned to make there, also foregoing the offerings he would have received from them (2 Cor 1:15-24).  Though tensions existed in their fellowship, these did not have the final word.  The relationship was restored and Paul received the offering for the care of the Church in Jerusalem.  The Christians in Corinth once again took up their work, together with the other communities which Paul visited, to sustain those in need.  This is a powerful sign of renewed communion.  The work that your community is carrying out together with other English-speaking communities here in Rome can be viewed in this light.  True, solid communion grows and is built up when people work together for those in need.  Through a united witness to charity, the merciful face of Jesus is made visible in our city.

            As Catholics and Anglicans, we are humbly grateful that, after centuries of mutual mistrust, we are now able to recognize that the fruitful grace of Christ is at work also in others.  We thank the Lord that among Christians the desire has grown for greater closeness, which is manifested in our praying together and in our common witness to the Gospel, above all in our various forms of service.  At times, progress on our journey towards full communion may seem slow and uncertain, but today we can be encouraged by our gathering.  For the first time, a Bishop of Rome is visiting your community.  It is a grace and also a responsibility: the responsibility of strengthening our ties, to the praise of Christ, in service of the Gospel and of this city.

            Let us encourage one another to become ever more faithful disciples of Jesus, always more liberated from our respective prejudices from the past and ever more desirous to pray for and with others.  A good sign of this desire is the “twinning” taking place today between your parish of All Saints and All Saints Catholic parish.  May the saints of every Christian confession, fully united in the Jerusalem above, open for us here below the way to all the possible paths of a fraternal and shared Christian journey.  Where we are united in the name of Jesus, he is there (cf. Mt 18:20), and turning his merciful gaze towards us, he calls us to devote ourselves fully in the cause of unity and love.  May the face of God shine upon you, your families and this entire community! 

(from Vatican Radio) from News.va http://ift.tt/2m1G2I9 via IFTTT from Blogger http://ift.tt/2m1GkyX

[pope-francis-quotes]

26th February >> Pope Francis Address today while visiting the Anglican Parish of All Saints in Rome

(Vatican Radio) Pope Francis on Sunday visited the Anglican Parish of All Saints in Rome. Speaking at the Church the Pope said, "today, with gratitude to God, we recognize one another as we truly are: brothers and sisters in Christ, through our common baptism. As friends and pilgrims we wish to walk the path together, to follow our Lord Jesus Christ together." Below, please find the English translation of the Pope Francis' words. Dear Brothers and Sisters, I wish to thank you for your gracious invitation to celebrate this parish anniversary with you. More than two hundred years have passed since the first public Anglican liturgy was held in Rome for a group of English residents in this part of the city. A great deal has changed in Rome and in the world since then. In the course of these two centuries, much has also changed between Anglicans and Catholics, who in the past viewed each other with suspicion and hostility. Today, with gratitude to God, we recognize one another as we truly are: brothers and sisters in Christ, through our common baptism. As friends and pilgrims we wish to walk the path together, to follow our Lord Jesus Christ together. You have invited me to bless the new icon of Christ the Saviour. Christ looks at us, and his gaze upon us is one of salvation, of love and compassion. It is the same merciful gaze which pierced the hearts of the Apostles, who left the past behind and began a journey of new life, in order to follow and proclaim the Lord. In this sacred image, as Jesus looks upon us, he seems also to call out to us, to make an appeal to us: “Are you ready to leave everything from your past for me? Do you want to make my love known, my mercy?” His gaze of divine mercy is the source of the whole Christian ministry. The Apostle Paul says this to us, through his words to the Corinthians which we have just heard. He writes: “Having this ministry by the mercy of God, we do not lose heart” (2 Cor 4:1). Our ministry flows forth from the mercy of God, which sustains our ministry and prevents it losing its vigour. Saint Paul did not always have an easy relationship with the community at Corinth, as his letters show. There was also a painful visit to this community, with heated words exchanged in writing. But this passage shows Paul overcoming past differences. By living his ministry in the light of mercy received, he does not give up in the face of divisions, but devotes himself to reconciliation. When we, the community of baptized Christians, find ourselves confronted with disagreements and turn towards the merciful face of Christ to overcome it, it is reassuring to know that we are doing as Saint Paul did in one of the very first Christian communities. How does Saint Paul grapple with this task, where does he begin? With humility, which is not only a beautiful virtue, but a question of identity. Paul sees himself as a servant, proclaiming not himself but Christ Jesus the Lord (v. 5). And he carries out this service, this ministry according to the mercy shown him (v. 1): not on the basis of his ability, nor by relying on his own strength, but by trusting that God is watching over him and sustaining his weakness with mercy. Becoming humble means drawing attention away from oneself, recognizing one’s dependence on God as a beggar of mercy: this is the starting point so that God may work in us. A past president of the World Council of Churches described Christian evangelization as “a beggar telling another beggar where he can find bread”. I believe Saint Paul would approve. He grasped the fact that he was “fed by mercy” and that his priority was to share his bread with others: the joy of being loved by the Lord, and of loving him. This is our most precious good, our treasure, and it is in this context that Paul introduces one of his most famous images, one we can all apply to ourselves: “we have this treasure in earthen vessels” (v. 7). We are but earthen vessels, yet we keep within us the greatest treasure in the world. The Corinthians knew well that it was foolish to preserve something precious in earthen vessels, which were inexpensive but cracked easily. Keeping something valuable in them meant running the risk of losing it. Paul, a graced sinner, humbly recognized that he was fragile, just like an earthen vessel. But he experienced and knew that it was precisely there that human misery opens itself to God’s merciful action; the Lord performs wonders. That is how the “extraordinary power” of God works (v. 7). Trusting in this humble power, Paul serves the Gospel. Speaking of some of his adversaries in Corinth, he calls them “super apostles” (2 Cor 12:11), perhaps, and with a certain irony, because they had criticized him for his weaknesses even as they considered themselves observant, even perfect. Paul, on the other hand, teaches that only in realizing we are weak earthen vessels, sinners always in need of mercy, can the treasure of God be poured into us and through us upon others. Otherwise, we will merely be full of our treasures, which are corrupted and spoiled in seemingly beautiful vessels. If we recognize our weakness and ask for forgiveness, then the healing mercy of God will shine in us and will be visible to those outside; others will notice in some way, through us, the gentle beauty of Christ’s face. At a certain point, perhaps in the most difficult moment with the community in Corinth, the Apostle Paul cancelled a visit he had planned to make there, also foregoing the offerings he would have received from them (2 Cor 1:15-24). Though tensions existed in their fellowship, these did not have the final word. The relationship was restored and Paul received the offering for the care of the Church in Jerusalem. The Christians in Corinth once again took up their work, together with the other communities which Paul visited, to sustain those in need. This is a powerful sign of renewed communion. The work that your community is carrying out together with other English-speaking communities here in Rome can be viewed in this light. True, solid communion grows and is built up when people work together for those in need. Through a united witness to charity, the merciful face of Jesus is made visible in our city. As Catholics and Anglicans, we are humbly grateful that, after centuries of mutual mistrust, we are now able to recognize that the fruitful grace of Christ is at work also in others. We thank the Lord that among Christians the desire has grown for greater closeness, which is manifested in our praying together and in our common witness to the Gospel, above all in our various forms of service. At times, progress on our journey towards full communion may seem slow and uncertain, but today we can be encouraged by our gathering. For the first time, a Bishop of Rome is visiting your community. It is a grace and also a responsibility: the responsibility of strengthening our ties, to the praise of Christ, in service of the Gospel and of this city. Let us encourage one another to become ever more faithful disciples of Jesus, always more liberated from our respective prejudices from the past and ever more desirous to pray for and with others. A good sign of this desire is the “twinning” taking place today between your parish of All Saints and All Saints Catholic parish. May the saints of every Christian confession, fully united in the Jerusalem above, open for us here below the way to all the possible paths of a fraternal and shared Christian journey. Where we are united in the name of Jesus, he is there (cf. Mt 18:20), and turning his merciful gaze towards us, he calls us to devote ourselves fully in the cause of unity and love. May the face of God shine upon you, your families and this entire community!