Secret History
But we should, according to a group of academics who say the Bard was a ruthless businessman who grew wealthy dealing in grain during a time of famine.
Researchers from Aberystwyth University in Wales argue that we can't fully understand Shakespeare unless we study his often-overlooked business savvy.
"Shakespeare the grain-hoarder has been redacted from history so that Shakespeare the creative genius could be born," the researchers say in a paper due to be delivered at the Hay literary festival in Wales in May.
Jayne Archer, a lecturer in medieval and Renaissance literature at Aberystwyth, said that oversight is the product of "a willful ignorance on behalf of critics and scholars who I think - perhaps through snobbery - cannot countenance the idea of a creative genius also being motivated by self-interest."
Archer and her colleagues Howard Thomas and Richard Marggraf Turley combed through historical archives to uncover details of the playwright's parallel life as a grain merchant and property owner in the town of Stratford-upon-Avon whose practices sometimes brought him into conflict with the law.
"Over a 15-year period he purchased and stored grain, malt and barley for resale at inflated prices to his neighbors and local tradesmen," they wrote, adding that Shakespeare "pursued those who could not (or would not) pay him in full for these staples and used the profits to further his own money-lending activities."
He was pursued by the authorities for tax evasion, and in 1598 was prosecuted for hoarding grain during a time of shortage.
The charge sheet against Shakespeare was not entirely unknown, though it may come as shock to some literature lovers. But the authors argue that modern readers and scholars are out of touch with the harsh realities the writer and his contemporaries faced.
He lived and wrote in the late 16th and early 17th centuries, during a period known as the "Little Ice Age," when unusual cold and heavy rain caused poor harvests and food shortages.
"I think now we have a rather rarefied idea of writers and artists as people who are disconnected from the everyday concerns of their contemporaries," Archer said. "But for most writers for most of history, hunger has been a major concern - and it has been as creatively energizing as any other force."
She argues that knowledge of the era's food insecurity can cast new light on Shakespeare's plays, including "Coriolanus," which is set in an ancient Rome wracked by famine. The food protests in the play can be seen to echo the real-life 1607 uprising of peasants in the English Midlands, where Shakespeare lived.
Shakespeare scholar Jonathan Bate told the Sunday Times newspaper that Archer and her colleagues had done valuable work, saying their research had "given new force to an old argument about the contemporaneity of the protests over grain-hoarding in 'Coriolanus.'"
Archer said famine also informs King Lear, in which an aging monarch's unjust distribution of his land among his three daughters sparks war.
"In the play there is a very subtle depiction of how dividing up land also involves impacts on the distribution of food," Archer said.
Archer said the idea of Shakespeare as a hardheaded businessman may not fit with romantic notions of the sensitive artist, but we shouldn't judge him too harshly. Hoarding grain was his way of ensuring that his family and neighbors would not go hungry if a harvest failed.
"Remembering Shakespeare as a man of hunger makes him much more human, much more understandable, much more complex," she said.
"He would not have thought of himself first and foremost as a writer. Possibly as an actor - but first and foremost as a good father, a good husband and a good citizen to the people of Stratford."
She said the playwright's funeral monument in Stratford's Holy Trinity Church reflected this. The original monument erected after his death in 1616 showed Shakespeare holding a sack of grain. In the 18th century, it was replaced with a more "writerly" memorial depicting Shakespeare with a tasseled cushion and a quill pen.
Source: Associated Press
Reader Comments
This 450 year hoax that Shaksper of Stratford wrote the works known as "Shake-spearean" is rapidly fading as the truth emerges that Edward de Vere is, was, and will be forever the true author. The two temperaments of Shaksper and de Vere are sharply contrasted; only one can be in any realistic way consistent with the spirit embedded in the lines of the plays and poems--and that is de Vere's spirit. The man was born at the highest level of nobility and aristocracy, through the workings of heredity. This "status" both helped and hindered him. Born in the middle of a political "image machine," he found himself larger than life and chaffing at the bits placed upon him to act his proper place. His temperament demanded he be given free reign; he was drawn more to the theatre and the bohemian taverns than to the constraints of the "nobility"
These so-called "scholars" preparing to speak on Shaksper's business temperament at the upcoming Stratford festival are barking up the wrong tree. What creative genius stops creating at the height of his powers and influence and goes back to mucking about with his illiterate family, daughters, and friends, all the while drinking, making malt, and suing anybody under the sun if they owe him a pittance? Shaksper did that, promptly retiring to Stratford when the real writer died in 1604.
In the meantime de Vere was pining away in despair that his son, Henry Wriothesley, the Third Earl of Southampton, and incidentally the son of de Vere and Queen Elizabeth, was under a life sentence in the Tower of London by order of Robert Cecil who wanted to make sure he had power over the next person to take the throne of England--King James I, appointed to such by none other than Cecil himslef who didn't want the next "natural issue" of the Majestry's body (Queen Elizabeth I's) to take his proper place. It is documented that Queen Elizabeth knew how to play the political game; it is also documented that she had at least four and maybe more "natural issue" from her Majesty's body, as was written into law in 1571 by none other than William Cecil's council. He wanted badly that his daughter Anne marry this young Earl, Edward de Vere, and thus be the next Queen Consort of England. It never happened of course.
Power has always altered reality. It's time to know the truth. Edward de Vere's motto was "Nothing truer than the truth." Covering up incest and illigetamacy were paramount to issuing the truth. Edward de Vere may himself be the "changeling" born of the incestuous relationship between Thomas Seymour and Princess Elizabeth who at age 15 delivered a child fostered off to the de Vere Earldom until such time as the Sixteenth Earl was mysteriously murdered and Edward de Vere, age 14 (most say 12 who have no clue that he was really born in 1548, not 1550) who was accompanied with 140 horsemen to the inner circle of Queen Elizabeth herself and under the wardship of William Cecil, the chief advisor, treasurer, and all around puppet-master of Queen Elizabeth's reign, and the one who placed the infant Edward de Vere with the de Vere family. This was no ordinary "changeling." The "sinful loving" expressed in the works bearing the "Shake-speare" stamp take on new dimensions when understood in the proper context. Edward de Vere was also called "my Willie," "sweet Willie," and "my Turk" by Queen Elizabeth. He himself might have been the next proper King of England had his creative spirit not alienated him from his bossy ward master, William Cecil who was also his father-in-law in a forced marriage to Cecil's daughter Anne Cecil.
Now the Stratfordians are trying to impugn the great creative spirit of the one who wrote the works and insinuate that the spirit was a mercantile one of hard nosed business. The writer of the words known as "Shake-spearean" was not the illiterate man from Stratford who left not a single letter, note, or manuscript, nor any books whatsoever. This man couldn't even sign his name the same way in any of the six legal documents he recorded his scribbles upon. Agreeing to be the "cover" and getting paid for it and taking the money home and keeping his mouth shut was all the Stratfordian Shaksper did.
It might take forever, but the truth will out in the end.
...there weren't compelling evidence and logical arguments for the de Vere authorship (which there are), anyone who has read, seen, and UNDERSTOOD the deeply ethical, empathic, conscious themes of the plays, and their developed humanity, could never believe that Shakespeare, the illiterate businessman of Stratford, as described, had written one line of those plays. To say that he had would be equivalent to claiming that Donald Trump had written them. It's simply idiotic. Whoever wrote them was a developed human, an evolved soul. Such beings don't squeeze the blood out of their neighbors in times of famine, just to make a few extra bucks, a la STS - that's what psychopaths do.
Review research done concerning Edward de Vere as the actual "Shakespeare" under pen name. This is another "Conspiracy theory" which appears to be in fact the true history. Laura has been so diligent in uncovering the truth in history. The Shakespeare situation looks like another coverup. Another example of how history has been ruthlessly modified to suit some agenda.
As Orson Welles stated "I think Oxford wrote Shakespeare. If you don't agree, there are some awfully funny coincidences to explain away."
And Dave McGowan regarding his outstanding works stated he does not believe in "coincidences" especially when there is an overwhelming amount of information that contradicts the official version of history.