Biography
The Rev. Robert Short is author of The Gospel According to Peanuts, the number one non-fiction bestseller in the U.S. in 1965 and one of the top ten all time religious best sellers. A native of Texas, Mr. Short has worked as a professional actor and was Director of Radio and Television for the Dallas Council of Churches. He is an ordained Presbyterian minister and presently serves as Associate Minister of the First Presbyterian Church in Brighton, Michigan, where he is in charge of adult Christian Education. [Biographical information is correct as of the broadcast date noted above.]

"Schulz, Shakespeare and the Bible" 
Over the years, I seem to have acquired the reputation for being "the Prophet of Peanuts," or "the Peanuts Theologian," or maybe even "the Apostle of Peanuts," or some such characterization. I'm sure I could do a lot worse. A real apostle, namely Paul, tells us, "I am not ashamed of the Gospel," and by this he means, of course, the Gospel of Christ. But I can easily say the same thing about me and The Gospel According to Peanuts, a book that in 1995 turned 30 years old. I'm not only proud of what this book has done and continues to do, but I'm also very proud of what it says.

The book was originally based on a color slide program by the same name, "The Gospel According to Peanuts," and I'm still doing that program today almost word for word as it was first written. People ask me frequently if I don't get tired doing the same thing over and over after so many, literally, thousands of times. And I always say that I'm sure I would have wearied of it long ago were it not for the fact that I still believe very strongly in what I say in that presentation and also in the book. Not only that, but I still very much enjoy the cartoons and enjoy hearing other people laugh at them. And so the book has not only stood up very well for me personally, but it also continues to do extremely well out there in the world. It was, as Floyd said, the number one best-seller in the United States in 1965 when it was first published. And just recently, it's gone into its ninth and tenth foreign translations -- French and Finnish. So the book is still very much alive and well, and I am definitely not ashamed of The Gospel According to Peanuts.

Nevertheless, people who haven't read it often get the wrong idea that the book is frivolous or shallow in its content. For instance, folks will frequently express surprise when they learn that the second great hero of the personal pantheon of the "Prophet of Peanuts," is Shakespeare. "Schulz and Shakespeare!" they say. "What a combination that is!" Or words to that "defect." But as far as I'm concerned, such a comment betrays not only ignorance about my book and about Peanuts, but probably even ignorance about Shakespeare. In my estimation, Schulz and Shakespeare have a lot of things in common, and I think anyone at all acquainted with both of them can easily see that this is true.

As a matter of fact, The Gospel According to Peanuts even puts Shakespeare before Schulz. The book opens with a quotation from Jeremiah and then quickly switches to a quote from King Lear, probably Shakespeare's darkest tragedy:

But who is with him?
None but the fool, who labors to out-jest
His heart-struck injuries.

We read in Lear.

And then it's only at this point that we finally get around to hearing from Charles Schulz, where he's quoted as saying:

"If you do not say anything in a cartoon, you might as well not draw it at all. Humor that does not say anything is worthless humor. So I contend that a cartoonist must be given a chance to do his own preaching."

In other words, Schulz and Shakespeare are such good go-togethers that it's often difficult to know which should speak first. One has to be careful, though, in injecting too much Shakespeare into a book like this. Some people just don't like it:

(Robert Short reads cartoon)

Sally: Why did I have to get stuck with a big brother who's a nothing? Why aren't you the hero type?

Charlie Brown: Well, I guess if you're not the hero type, you're just not the hero type...

Sally: DON'T GO QUOTING SHAKESPEARE TO ME!

Now, Charlie Brown's statement here isn't actually from the Bard, of course. But that doesn't mean that Shakespeare doesn't make word for word appearances in Peanuts from time to time. I think one of the reasons that people have appreciated The Gospel According to Peanuts is that it goes to the trouble of tracking down Schulz's many literary allusions, especially direct and indirect references to the Bible.

(Robert Short reads cartoon)

Charlie Brown: Thou shalt not be afraid of the terror by night. Nor the pestilence that walketh in darkness...

POW! (Charlie Brown gets hit by a ball)

Charlie Brown: But those line drives will kill you!

Well, it would seem that many people are not only interested to learn that Charlie Brown's quote in this cartoon comes from Psalm 91, but they also seem to appreciate finding out just a little about what this biblical verse means. And notice the way Lucy wants to know what Linus means when he quotes Shakespeare,

(Robert Short reads cartoon)

Lucy: EVERYTHING'S WRONG! I DON'T KNOW HOW I PUT UP WITH IT! AND IT'S GETTING WORSE! IT'S GETTING WORSE ALL THE TIME!

Linus: Her voice was ever soft. Gentle, and low...an excellent thing in woman.

Lucy:  What'd he say?

Oh, he only quoted a couple of lines from the final scene of King Lear, which probably wouldn't really interest Lucy all that much. But these words and this scene are nevertheless a strong commentary on why "EVERYTHING'S WRONG AND IT'S GETTING WORSE! IT'S GETTING WORSE ALL THE TIME!"

So let me suggest, then, just a few of the parallels that I see between Schulz and Shakespeare, or between "Sparky" and "The Bard," to use their nicknames.

First of all, there is, of course, their artistry. And what kind of artistry is it? Basically, I think it's the artistry of popular drama. It's the artistry of dramatic dialogue, with wild and improbable confrontations between their characters, all of these characters having their exits and their entrances, all of them fully visible to our eyes, all of them enacting the imaginations of their creators, all of them skilled at entertaining and fascinating to watch, and all of them capable of dramatizing either life's sugar-coating or its pathos:

(Robert Short reads cartoon)

Sally:  I couldn't decide if I wanted marble fudge, chocolate, rocky road, vanilla or butter pecan...I finally decided to try marble fudge...then I had to choose between a plain cone or a sugar cone...I decided on the sugar cone...so what happened? I went out the door, and dropped the whole thing on the sidewalk! Don't tell me my life isn't a Shakespearean tragedy!

Charlie Brown: I won't.

And make no mistake here, both Schulz and Shakespeare have produced popular drama. Nowadays we don't tend to think of Shakespeare as a popular artist, I think. These days Shakespeare's work seems to be "caviar to the general," to use Hamlet's phrase. But it certainly wasn't caviar to the general Elizabethan population. For them it was more like what pizza or peanut butter is to us. Drama was the popular art form in Shakespeare's time, and Shakespeare was the recognized master dramatist of this time. Everyone - from the groundlings on up - enjoyed his plays and flocked to see them. So whether we're talking about the proscenium of the Globe Theatre or the proscenium of a small comic strip that appears all over the globe, we're no doubt dealing with two master, popular dramatists here.

But if the first parallel we can see between Schulz and Shakespeare is on the level of their artistry, or what their hands have wrought, the second major parallel would be on the level of their heads. Obviously in the case of both of these men, there's a deep intelligence and insight at work; and in the case of both, this intelligence and insight is there without benefit of a lot of formal education. As a matter of fact, the major argument of most of the so-called "anti-Stratfordians," that is, the people who don't think Shakespeare could have written Shakespeare, is that the Bard of Stratford-on-Avon had no university education. And that's true. Shakespeare did not have a university background, which probably would have ruined him as an artist. He probably would have turned out to be a pompous bore like Ben Jonson, a playwright and a contemporary of Shakespeare's, who did have a university degree. People like Schulz and Shakespeare show us that genius is where you find it, and that -

You can go to the college,
You can go to the school,
But if you don't have intelligence and insight,
You're an educated fool!

Now the type of intelligence and insight I'm talking about here is what the Bible refers to as "wisdom." And if there ever was anything that's easy to demonstrate, it's the thorough familiarity that both of these men have with at least the wisdom literature of the Bible - that is, the biblical books of Job, Proverbs, the Psalms, and Ecclesiastes. For instance, King Lear is practically a Shakespearean version of Job; and Job and the other wisdom books make constant reappearances in Peanuts. As people have often noticed, Charlie Brown on his pitcher's mound isn't really that far from Job on his dung-heap.

(Robert Short reads cartoon)

Charlie Brown: We're getting slaughtered again, Schroeder. I don't know what to do. Why do we have to suffer like this?

Schroeder: Man is born to trouble as the sparks fly upward.

Charlie Brown: What?

Lucy: He's quoting from the "Book of Job," Charlie Brown, seventh verse, fifth chapter.

Lucy: Actually, the problem of suffering is a very profound one, and...

Lucy: If a person has bad luck, it's because he's done something wrong, that's what I always say!

Schroeder: That's what Job's friends told him, but I doubt if...

Lucy: What about Job's wife? I don't think she gets enough credit!

Schroeder: I think a person who never suffers, never matures. Suffering is actually very important...

Lucy: Who wants to suffer? Don't be ridiculous!

Pigpen: But pain is a part of life, and...

Lucy: A person who speaks only of the "patience" of Job reveals that he knows very little of the book! Now, the way I see it...

Charlie Brown: I don't have a ball team...I have a theological seminary!

Shakespeare tells us that the purpose of plays, or drama, is "to hold the mirror up to Nature" - that is, our nature, human nature. And if there ever were two ordinary mortals with greater insight into human nature than Schulz and Shakespeare, I don't know who it'd be. Both showed themselves to be thoroughly familiar with that text of scripture which tells us: "The heart is deceitful, above all things, and desperately corrupt," said Jeremiah, "who can understand it?"

Well, I would say that Schulz and Shakespeare come pretty close to understanding it. For instance, in Richard III, Gloucester says to his young nephew:

Sweet Prince, the untainted virtue of your years
Hath not yet dived into the world's deceit.
Nor more can you distinguish of a man
Than of his outward show, which, God he knows,
Seldom or never jumpeth with the heart.

Now this is beautiful poetry as far as I'm concerned and it makes for a powerful drama also. But Schulz knows how to express pretty much the same thought in ways that connect more closely with us today:

(Robert Short reads cartoon)

Lucy: Why don't you let me hold the ball for you Charlie Brown?

Charlie Brown: Do you think I'm crazy? Do you think you can fool me with the same trick every year?

Lucy: Oh, I won't pull the ball away, Charlie Brown, I promise you. I give you my bonded word!

Charlie Brown: All right. I'll trust you. I have an undying faith in human nature! I believe that people who want to change can do so and I believe that they should be given a chance to prove themselves.

AAUGH! (Lucy pulls the ball out from under him) WUMP!

Lucy: Charlie Brown, your faith in human nature is an inspiration to all young people.

And so when Falstaff bellows: "There's nothing but roguery to be found in villainous man!" we learn here from Lucy that Falstaff should probably have also included women.

And just as in the case of Falstaff here, Shakespeare, along with Schulz, knows how to use comedy for serious purposes. And, so as the Duke can say of Touchstone, the fool in As You Like It, so we can say of both Schulz and Shakespeare: "He uses his folly like a stalking-horse, and under the presentation of that he shoots his wit." - especially their biblical and theological wit.

But now in addition to their hands and their heads, it's really on the level of their hearts that Schulz and Shakespeare show the greatest similarity, I think. And this simply means that there is a deep religious dimension in the work of both of these two men and in their own ways, they turn out to be "preachers." I don't think this should come as a great surprise to anyone. Dr. Johnson told us long ago of Shakespeare that "You can show me no passage in Shakespeare where there is simply a description of material objects, without any intermixture of moral notions."

And A. L. Rowse, the famous British historian and Shakespeare scholar, tells us, "Of all Shakespeare's `sources' the Bible and the prayer book come first and are the most constant."

And I especially like the comment of Bill Mauldin in Good Grief, Rheta Grimsley Johnson's recent biography of Schulz, where Mauldin is quoted as saying, "The thing about Schulz's work is the soul behind it. That's why it's great. He's a preacher at heart. All good cartoonists are jackleg preachers. There is a strong moral tone there."

Now, this is not to claim that Shakespeare and Schulz are operating from identical religious viewpoints. I'm not at all sure they are. But I would like to claim though that the deep biblical dimension in the work of both of these men does have an identical result, and that's the element of kindness and love that saturates their work. That is, they both fully incorporate in their work what Shakespeare can call, "the milk of human kindness," a kindness which, like nature's most basic food - milk - has the power to nourish all who receive it. Both men are certainly aware of the depths of evil and human maliciousness in this world, but I submit that it's their ability to see beyond this darkness that causes their work to shine like "a good deed in a naughty world," to use Portia's words in The Merchant of Venice. Both of these men come from a tradition that has taught them to pray for mercy, "And that same prayer doth teach us all to render the deeds of mercy," as Portia says alluding to the "Lord's Prayer."

And so they do. They render the deeds of mercy and love and kindness even as they ply their art. And we others are the fortunate beneficiaries of that mercy and love and kindness, a kindness that is communicated in very gentle and subtle ways throughout their art. This is why Shakespeare's work has always gone on living and why Schulz's will always do exactly the same, I believe. Both have created great works of artistic genius, but at the very foundation of both bodies of work, there's always been "this milk of human kindness" or "mercy" or "love" and in particular, God's love.

In one of Shakespeare's sonnets, namely Sonnet 65, he wrestles with the question of how his expression of this love can continue to live and not be defeated by time, by "the wreckful siege of battering days," as Shakespeare puts it. And he concludes that there's only one thing that can enable his love to go on living in this world in spite of the ravages of time. And the answer Shakespeare comes up with is basically the answer of both Schulz and Shakespeare - and the Bible! Is there anything that can protect the expressions of love from finally being defeated by time, he asks. "O none," Shakespeare concludes,

...unless this miracle have might,
That in black ink
my love may still shine bright.

In black ink, Schulz, Shakespeare and the Bible have produced the miracle of over coming time with love.

Interview with Robert Short
Interviewed by Floyd Brown

Floyd Brown: Thank you for the very entertaining message that you brought to us. You know, cartoonists use humor and have great vision and they seem to be such wonderful learning tools, as you know. You've been lecturing with this for a great number of years. Why don't they use more humor in teaching religion? Is that a no-no? Is it too serious a topic?

Robert Short: Well, I think they should, Floyd. I think it really is too bad that humor isn't put to better uses in communicating the Christian message, and it really is a very appropriate means of communicating the gospel, or the Christian message, because there are so many parallels and relationships that exist between Christ and comedy, or faith and folly, or the holy and humor. And one of the things puts them in the same family, so to speak, is the incongruity that both are talking about. Christian faith always talks about the incongruity between people and God - the incongruity of what we would like to be and yet what our sinfulness causes to be - that type of thing. And incongruity is also the stuff that humor is made of.

As far as I'm concerned, you can really illustrate a great deal of what the Christian message is saying with humor, and especially with cartoon strips, because I see them very much like the parables of Jesus. I think it's pretty obvious if Jesus has said, "I've got a little lecture on theology here," I think people would have scattered in about 92 different directions. But he says, "I have a story for you, or a word picture," which the word "parable" can actually be translated to mean, and so in His own way, He was giving them cartoons also because these were vignettes, little slices of life, that He held up in front of people and said, "Let's look at this and see what its possible meaning are for our lives."

Brown: Schulz quoting you said that, "If a cartoon doesn't have a message, it's not worth drawing." We've got about a minute left. If he were to draw a cartoon of the world, what message would you have in there and say, "Here's the world. This is what we look like, people."

Short: Well, I think he does a good job of maintaining the kind of honesty in a cartoon strip that really makes a cartoon strip great. There is a lot of humor out there in the comic pages that is not really honest about life, but Schulz is very honest about it and I think as long as he does that, he's going to be very close to Shakespeare at the same time, because both of them were artists of consummate honesty about our human condition.

Brown: But if he looked at the world, would he laugh?

Short: Oh, yes, definitely. He's a Christian. He has to.

Brown:  He has to laugh. Robert, thank you so much.