TODAY ARRIVES

The mysterious Middle Ages

At last, today arrives!  But what does that mean?  In our context, today might include the relatively dark period that we call the Middle Ages.  But even the Middle Ages is in many respects a mysterious time.  For instance, archaeologists, working with DNA specialists, have discovered that a few people living in southern England -- in Kent and Dorset, carried a considerable amount of West African DNA, perhaps from West African grandparents.

This is all very interesting, but who were these people?  What skills did they possess?  Whose boats or ships carried them to southern England?

We might guess that they came from along the Niger River, were sold into slavery, and taken either across the Sahara to North Africa or else eastward and then northward down the Nile, where they were resold to wealthy landowners who needed agricultural workers.

This would be just before the Arab conquests of Egypt and North Africa.  Many of these workers (whose conditions of employment in Egypt were more like serfdom than slavery) adopted the religion of their owners or employers, which was Christianity.

Some of their owners or employers, in order to escape the foreign armies that were swiftly taking over the Middle East and getting ready to move into Egypt sold their land and purchased ships to carry heir own family members and their employees on a long voyage to England, where they had heard stories about good potential agricultural land that could be purchased for a song.  It was said that all a new owner would have to do was to clear and cultivate the land and use timber that was right on the property to build on it.

That might be how some immigrants to southern England happened to carry DNA from West Africa.

Young Willie Shakespeare

Samuel Clemens remarked that William Shakespeare could not have written the plays and other literary works attributed to him because he demonstrated a knowledge of Italy that could not be acquired by someone who had never traveled there.  The flaw in this logic is that William Shakespeare might very well have traveled there.

Nothing is known about his whereabouts from the time he was Christened, shortly after his birth, and his marriage to Anne Hathaway, eighteen years later.  But we do know that he did not settle down, after graduating from grammar school to learn the glove-making trade from his father.  Neither did he attend a university.

It seems likely that he attended The King's New School, a free grammar school a quarter mile from his home.  And knowing about William Shakespeare's capabilities it seems likely that his teachers there recommended that he should acquire a university education.  But it is easy to imagine that his father replied, "No, he is my only son, and I will teach him to make fine gloves."  And that the next morning he crept out of the house and joined a theatrical company.

Boy actors who could play in female roles were in high demand, because women and girls were forbidden to play on the stage, and no doubt a boy with Shakespeare's great talent could quickly land a job in the theatre.

But then, if he did not attend a university and did not visit Italy, how did he become so learned and so familiar with Italy?

Edward de Vere

On the basis of his style of writing and his vocabulary it has been suggested that Edward de Vere might have written William Shakespeare's supposed works.  But suppose William Shakespeare caught de Vere' eye while the boy was playing a female role on a stage.  It is known that Edward deVere was attracted to young boys, and de Vere (who might very well have sponsored the entertainment) might have snatched the boy from the stage company and installed him in his own household.

Living in close proximity with William de Vere for a year or more before his teen years, and exposed to the books in de Vere's possession and accompanying this excellent tutor for over a year as the two of them traveled in Italy and elsewhere on the Continent could easily account for Shakespeare's vast fund of knowledge -- among the books known to have been in de Vere's possession were a Geneva Bible, a book of Chaucer's tales, collected writings of Plutarch (the Greek and Roman philosopher) and books in an Italian vernacular, which would have helped the young Willie Shakespeare to quickly become fluent in Italian dialects.  So much for William Shakespeare's education and knowledge of Italy.

Parting of the ways

The two eventually returned to England, Shakespeare having enjoyed the trip more than de Vere, and they parted company as William Shakespeare returned to the stage with a head full of ideas that went far beyond those of the young boy who had been snatched from the stage by de Vere.

On his return Shakespeare began editing scripts, and soon it became clear that everything he touched turned to gold.  By the time he was eighteen his earnings were sufficient for him to travel frequently to his family home, paying his traveling expenses out of income from the theatrical company.

On one such trip to Stratford-upon-Avon he managed to impregnate a woman who was eight years his senior.  When he returned home a couple of months later and learned that the lady was desperate a wedding was arranged in some haste and six months later she bore him a daughter.  Two years after that, Ann Hathaway gave birth to twins -- a boy and a girl.

William Shakespeare's domiciles

Shakespeare surely loved his children, but his source of funds was in London, so it is doubtful that he spent very much time at Stratford-upon-Avon.  He was obviously diligent, and he made wise investments, so he accumulated great wealth, and with this wealth he purchased a much grander house, also in Stratford-upon-Avon -- where his wife and his favorite daughter Susanna preferred to live.  And he himself retired to that house in his final years.  Even then he did not spend all of his time at Stratford Upon Avon.  He owned another house in London, near the theatres where his plays were performed.

He doesn't seem to have owned another house in London until 1613, by which time he was an old man, and this brings up the question of where he might have lived in London throughout his long career -- it seems unlikely that he had boarded at inns from 1582, when he married Anne Hathaway, until 1613, when he finally bought a house in London.  Knowing Shakespeare's proclivity for seducing women, I wouldn't be surprised if he kept mistresses throughout those thirty years and slept in their homes.

The last play that bore his name as sole author seems to have been an allegory based on his view of his own life, which he sees as a pretense of mastery and fame which he does not deserve.  (After all, he was only a hack writer and a runaway son of a glovemaker.)  At the end of the play Prospero, who represents Shakespeare himself, turns to the audience and begs forgiveness for his sins.  Perhaps he was addressing the women he had seduced and the illegitimate children he had fathered.

The message that Shakespeare inserted into "The Tempest" was deeply personal.  I would guess that he had already reconnected with some of his adult illegitimate children and knew that his message would react its intended audience.  Indeed, I would venture to guess that he wanted to pass on his trade to his children, just as his own father had wanted to teach him to make fine gloves, and that the playwrights that he subsequently collaborated with were actually his own children.

Meanwhile, Edward de Vere's vast inheritance of disparate estates steadily evaporated throughout his lifetime, largely as a result of his own carelessness, extravagance and poor judgement.

De Vere and Queen Elizabeth as seen by Shakespeare

Shakespeare's Hamlet might have been based in part on his observations of deVere, who thundered in private about the actions of Elizabeth's regime as many of his relatives suffered charges of treason and were subsequently executed and their vast properties were confiscated by the crown.  But de Vere (like Hamlet) was utterly silent in public.

Perhaps Shakespeare saw something of himself, also, in this hapless and indecisive character.  But Shakespeare's only sword was a quill pen, and he had to be careful not to be too obvious.

Another famous play was about McBeth, a general who became king after he murdered the reigning king and then realized that he had to kill others in order to secure his power.  This story might have been Shakespeare's commentary on the sins of Queen Elizabeth and her regime as seen by de Vere.  Lady McBeth is consumed by grief and guilt, and goes mad when, after egging on her husband to kill the king, she sees her husband go on to kill her friends.  Similarly to what happened to Lady McBeth, Queen Elizabeth's regime went on to ruin many families through heavy fines, imprisonment, confiscations and executions --for such crimes as failing to attend Church of England services, harboring Catholic priests and joining conspiracies against the Crown.

A tragicomedy in three short acts

Speaking of Shakespeare, an ongoing war in the Middle East is like a Shakespearean drama in which the Iran is pitted against the united efforts of America and Israel.  In the course of this conflict the leaders of the three warring parties -- Martyruler of Iran, Arrogant of America and Paranoiant of Israel -- are all assassinated.

The three of them awaken in an afterlife where they argue and then fight over who had been in the right.  Martyruler loses his sword in the brawl, and this leads the other two to believe that they have won the fight.  While holding him at sword-point Arrogant and Paranoiant argue with him, telling him that he should at least admit that he had been overmatched.  Martyruler thereupon lunges at the two of them, impaling himself on their blades.

Martyruler awakens in a second afterlife, and while a hundred virgins cater to his every need he soliloquizes about the return of the Hidden Imam, who will bring justice to the world.  He winds up by saying, "Obviously, I was not overmatched, because Allah was on my side.  Moreover, when the Hidden Imam returns he will honor those who had been assassinated.  Those martyrs will be rewarded in the afterlife, whereas those who had denied the righteousness of the martyrs will themselves die a hundred deaths in Hell.