Shakespeare Solved ®


Shakespeare Solved ® is a forthcoming series of novels that covers the Bard's entire life and work.

These novels solve the mysteries surrounding Shakespeare by transporting us back in time, to walk in his shoes, and see his world through his eyes.

Only when we see Shakespeare in his original historical context can we understand what his plays and poems really mean.

This blog explains some of my ideas and discoveries, to prepare for this series of novels.

Please join over 72,000 people on facebook, Twitter & Google Plus following Shakespeare Solved ® -- the number one Shakespeare blog in the world!


Articles Written For:

The University of Oxford's Bodleian Library & The Royal Shakespeare Company

Most Popular Posts:

1. Shakespeare's Shylock Solved 2. Shakespeare's Othello Finally Identified 3. Shakespeare In Love Sequel Solved 4. The Real Romeo and Juliet 5. Shakespeare's Malvolio Solved 6. Shakespeare's Real Petruchio



Friday, November 24, 2017

Dream of Shakespeare



Is Shakespeare a nightmare or a dream to you?

Does he seem frightening, intimidating, or impossible to understand? 

Or does he bring you pleasure when you read his poems, or read/watch a production of one of his plays?

The Reconciliation of Titania and Oberon
by Joseph Noel Patton
Wikimedia Commons

I think most people don’t enjoy him as much as they should, and are frustrated when they try to read or study his works.

I think that there is a terrible trend, encouraged by some people, to make Shakespeare more confusing, and a tormenting chore to study, and to cloud our minds with incorrect ideas about him.

Universities in the United Kingdom recently started to issue trigger warnings for Shakespeare. 

That is a sure sign that some people want you to be afraid of Shakespeare, as if there is something wrong with him, or that reading Shakespeare is bad for you. They want to alienate him from you.

Also, there are some people who want to present Shakespeare in a false light, and make him appear to be a false idol.

The people who made the otherwise light-hearted Shakespeare In Love movie would have us believe that Shakespeare wrote his majestic works out of selfish and base desires -- the screenwriter Marc Norman was quoted as saying that Shakespeare was "not a magical, mysterious, genius playwright. … He was broke, he was horny and he was starved for an idea.”

And in the same movie, they want you to believe that Shakespeare was unfaithful to his wife, and had all but abandoned his three children.

It should then come as no surprise that the film was produced by Harvey Weinstein, who has been accused of many sexual crimes and transgressions.

This must not continue. We must not allow ourselves to be fooled by these people who want to desecrate and alienate Shakespeare. 

If we do not stand up and defend Shakespeare, one day his works might even be banned.

What is more likely, than an outright ban, is that we will get more depictions of him like the one in the recent TV series Will, created by Craig Pearce. I only watched the first episode, but that was enough for me to see that they wanted to defame Shakespeare.

We can not allow these people to present Shakespeare as a false idol, when there is so much about him that is truly worthy of our genuine praise and sincere exaltation.

That would be a true nightmare.

I encourage you to read and study and enjoy Shakespeare as much as possible, and keep the dream of him alive.

If nothing else, I want to encourage you to dream of a Shakespeare that is not bad or frightening, or impossible to understand.

The Comedies of William Shakespeare, 1896
An image of Titania and Bottom
Wikimedia Commons

One of the first steps in understanding Shakespeare is to realize that he is being framed.

We assume that Shakespeare was just a playwright, not much different than playwrights today.

We assume that the theatre industry in London, during Shakespeare’s time, was not much different than the theatre scene in London today.

We assume that there was nothing particularly special about being a playwright in London circa 1600, just like we don’t think there is anything particularly extraordinary about being a playwright in London today.

We assume wrong.

We have put Shakespeare in our contemporary frame of reference for playwrights and theatres.

This is the wrong frame of reference.

We have to take that frame away and replace it with another frame of reference, one that Shakespeare would have understood.

Because when Shakespeare came to London around 1587, he had no idea what being a playwright meant, and he had no idea what a theatre industry even meant.

The theatres in London were almost entirely brand new, when Shakespeare arrived. There had been no theatres in London for over 1000 years — from the time of the Romans.
The first theatre in London was the Red Lion. It was built in 1567, about three years after Shakespeare was born. The Red Lion closed a year later.

The Comedies of William Shakespeare, 1896
An image of Titania
Wikimedia Commons

The next theatre to be built was The Theatre, in Shoreditch. It opened in 1576, when Shakespeare was about 12 years old.

There had been a very loose system of playwrighting, actors and performances up to and including the early years of Elizabeth’s reign.

But there was no theatre industry. There was no organized effort to create plays, find and train actors, and perform them with any regularity.

There was also never an effort to create plays that could be seen by both the royal court and the public at large.

Queen Elizabeth felt pressure from within her royal court, from her powerful Lords like the Earl of Leicester, who wanted to share the plays with Her Majesty’s subjects.

Much to her credit, with a royal licence in 1572, Elizabeth allowed playing companies to organize and perform publicly across England.

But even then, it took many years for plays to mature. It would take years for them to become something more than just royal parlor dramas, and for them to attract audiences at the theatres that were being built.

I contend that it was not until the late 1580s that something resembling a theatre industry was taking shape.

It probably started with Christopher Marlowe’s Tamburlaine play, which was probably first performed in 1587.

The fact that Marlowe quickly wrote a sequel to Tamburlaine, to capitalize on the success of the first part, suggests that this was the real birth of a true organized industry for playgoing.

1587 was also when Shakespeare first arrived in London.

Hermia and Lysander. A Midsummer Night's Dream, 1870
John Simmons
Wikimedia Commons

So, this means that when Shakespeare left his home and family in Stratford-Upon-Avon, he probably had no idea how he was going to get a job as an actor or playwright. 

He also had no reason to think that such work could guarantee a steady income, or that work in theatres could be a career.

There were many guilds in England at the time — for all sorts of industries, like glovemakers, fishmongers, salters, musicians, etc.

But there was no guild for playwrights or for actors. It was a poorly regulated chaotic mess.

When Shakespeare first arrived in London, he was joining an exciting experiment, that just might succeed and endure. 

But it was also very likely that plays and theatres might be closed down by royal decree, and theatre would vanish from London — perhaps for many years. Perhaps for another 1000 years. Perhaps forever.

We should not assume what Shakespeare was doing was ordinary, common, or guaranteed to succeed.

He and his fellow actors and playwrights were creating an industry from scratch.

There was no precedent for what they were doing. There was no promise of success. There were very real threats of failure.

Playwrights today could have a long career, even if some of the plays they write are not successful.

For Shakespeare, each and every word of each and every play had to be successful. Failure was not an option.

Also, he truly believed that each play he wrote, and every poem he wrote, could have been his last. He never knew when all of it would disappear.

He could have failed. He could have died of the plague, especially during the period of 1592-3 when a major plague struck England.

He could have been imprisoned and persecuted for his plays. The Queen’s government tortured Thomas Kyd, and he died from his wounds. Ben Jonson spent many nights in jail, for offending the government.

Writing was a life-or-death experience for Shakespeare. He was on the razor’s edge the entire time he wrote plays and poems.

Today, I am not aware of many artists whose art could get them killed — and none of them are currently producing plays in London’s West End.

Gustave Doré, "A Midsummer Night's Dream" 1870
Wikimedia Commons

We take so much of what Shakespeare accomplished for granted, because we have been taught to think that he was just an ordinary guy who did nothing special.

That is not the real Shakespeare. That is a nightmare-inducing version of Shakespeare.

The truth is that he was an extraordinary man who did something astonishing.

Almost single-handedly he created a real theatre industry. 

There is so much more to this incredible story of his. I am very eager to share it with you, starting with my forthcoming first novel in a whole series of books about his life.

I want to introduce you to a new Shakespeare, the one you have not been told about, or taught to understand.

William Shakespeare; poet, dramatist, and man (1901)
Wikimedia Commons

When Shakespeare is put in his proper frame of reference — and placed in his original historical context — he will begin to be someone we can believe in, and look up to.

When you know the true story, I am confident that you will find more to admire about him than not.

It is my humble hope to restore Shakespeare to his proper place in our culture, as a source of inspiration.

I want to reward you for your faith in Shakespeare, and offer you more knowledge about him, more truth about him — so you can continue to dream of him.

Cheers,

David B. Schajer


Friday, November 17, 2017

Shakespeare's Huge Blunder




Does Shakespeare sometimes seem impossible to understand?

It’s not your fault.

First of all, his plays and poems were written a long time ago.

It is hard to figure out what happened last week, let alone determine what Shakespeare was doing in London 400 years ago.

There is another reason why Shakespeare is hard to understand. He wrote in what is called Early Modern English.

It is very similar to our Modern English, but different enough to make it sometimes sound like gobbledygook.

As far as I know, Early Modern English is not commonly taught in any school. So we can be forgiven for not easily understanding Shakespeare’s words and phrases.

However, even if we did study Early Modern English, we still would find his plays and poems hard to understand. We would still be left scratching our heads.

Why?

Because he wrote in a language he thought we would all know.

But Shakespeare was wrong. 

He made a huge blunder.

Yes, even Shakespeare, a brilliant genius, was human enough to make a mistake. And it’s a whopper!

Where did he go wrong?

He expected that all of us today would know the Bible.

Image taken from 'The holi bible'. The Bishops' Bible, 1569
Wikimedia Commons

He also expected us to know Ovid, Plutarch, Aeschylus, Socrates, Aesop, and all the rest.

How could he have made such a huge miscalculation?

Because in his day the audience of his, who could read, were reading the Bible or hearing it recited aloud on a daily basis. They were also steeped in the Classics.

Minerva transforms Nyctimene into an owl
From Ovid's Metamorphoses
Wikimedia Commons

There were many people in his audiences who could not read nor write. But they knew the Bible, and they had heard Aesop’s Fables from the time they were children. 

Also, Shakespeare kept this audience, of those who could not read, entertained by all of the stage antics.

 When we just read the plays instead of seeing them performed, we miss all of the stage action and physical comedy that carries the plays along.

Don’t think that Shakespeare was writing only for the literate in the audience. Why would he? They were in the minority.

No, he wrote for the majority, who were illiterate. He wanted the widest audience possible, and that meant writing primarily for the audience who could not read.


At some point in his career, Shakespeare realized how the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament had been read and studied for thousands of years.

He also realized that the ancient Greek and Roman classics had endured for millennia.

He made an assumption that if those books had lasted so long, then they would continue to last thousands of years into the future.

All he had to do, in the hopes that his plays and poems would endure, was to write with a similar language, with similar character types and with themes similar to those found in the great books from the past.

He predicted that as long as people continued to study what was written in the past, with the Classics and with the Bible, then his plays and poems would have a future and would be understood completely.

He was half right.

Shakespeare’s work has indeed endured. We still read and perform his plays. We scrutinize his poems.

But he got the other half wrong.

It probably never occurred to him that we would ignore the great written works of the past.

It would astonish him to think that we have allowed so much great writing, and such essential history, to be dismissed and disparaged.

Do you want to understand Shakespeare? 

Do you want to solve Shakespeare for yourself?

I invite you to read the Bible and the Classics.

It is all right there.

It has been right there all along — hiding in plain sight.

 Heracles gets the Belt of Hippolyta, Queen of the Amazons.
 J. M. Félix Magdalena.
Wikimedia Commons

Once you begin to know these books, and begin to see Shakespeare for yourself, you won’t be blind to him anymore.

You will discover that Shakespeare’s life and works are not shrouded in the dark.

You will begin to understand why, in Midsummer Night's Dream, Shakespeare named one of his characters Hippolyta -- and what that has to do with Amazonian Queen of the same name.

You are probably wondering why no one has come along and solved Shakespeare before.

Why hasn’t someone with a university degree in Theology and/or the Classics ever used the Bible and ancient Greek and Roman writing in order to translate and solve Shakespeare?

How is it possible that all it took to decipher Shakespeare was to use these great books as a cipher key?

There is a rather simple reason.

It has only been in the last 100 years or so that Shakespeare has been performed and studied with any real frequency.

Before that, many of his plays were performed infrequently, if at all. 

King Lear, for example, was rarely performed. It was even rewritten -- the tragic ending was replaced with a happy one!

Here is a picture of the cover page of the Lear with "Alterations":

The History of King Lear (an adaptation of Shakespeare's tragedy by Nahum Tate) from 1681.
Wikimedia Commons

Before Shakespeare became popular with the general public, the scholarly elite did not like him, or they ignored him.

As early as the 1660s — only a few decades after his death — Shakespeare’s plays were considered “ungrammatical” and “coarse.”

Even today, there are British theatre critics who hate how vulgar the plays can be, and abhor efforts to make the plays more entertaining and funny.

In my forthcoming novel, I will introduce you to a new Shakespeare.

He is a Shakespeare you have never met before. He has been hidden from you, for far too long.

This first novel weaves together Shakespeare’s biography with his plays.

It is my hope that you will finally understand who Shakespeare really was, and what his writing really means, in this sweeping and historically accurate narrative of his life.

Cheers,

David B. Schajer




Friday, November 10, 2017

Shakespeare's Grasshopper Solved


A grasshopper has just recently been discovered stuck in a painting Vincent Van Gogh made 128 years ago!

I love stories like this, when something is discovered, or revealed, something that was always right under our noses, something that was always hiding in plain sight!

Van Gogh's Olive Trees
picture: AP

I love the idea that something as well known as a Van Gogh painting had been admired for so long, but never really examined.

It reminds me of Ron Piccirillo, a graphic artist who recently discovered images hidden in Leonardo DaVinci’s Mona Lisa that had not been seen in 500 years!



How did he find the hidden images of a lion, an ape and a buffalo in the Mona Lisa?

He turned the painting on its side!

I think both of these stories serve as a lesson for us, teaching us not to take what we see for granted. We should look closer, and pay more attention to great works of art, and study history with more curiosity than we have.

I think both of these stories serve to prove that even the greatest experts in the world make mistakes and have blinders on — they don’t see and understand everything.

It is especially true of Shakespeare.

Shakespeare has lots of “grasshoppers” hidden in his plays and poetry that have been ignored for over 400 years.

If we were to spend more time studying who Shakespeare was, in his original historical context, we might discover more than we have seen before.

Did Shakespeare ever use the word “grasshopper?” 

Yes, he used the word once, in the King Edward III play.

An illuminated manuscript miniature,c.1430-40, of Edward III of England (1327-1377).
Wikimedia Commons

Some people argue that Shakespeare did not write that play. Those people are wrong. He did write it, and I have a great deal of evidence to prove it.

But for now, let me focus on the word “grasshopper” and show you how his use of this word in this play actually bolsters my argument that Shakespeare was the author of the play.

The word is used in act 3, scene 2. Several characters, Frenchmen and Citizens, discuss how the English have invaded France. They debate whether they should flee their land, and escape the English, or whether they should stay, in the hope that English will never penetrate too deeply into their nation.

The First Frenchman character argues that the English are so far away, and that they will face such heavy losses in battle against the French army, that there is no reason for these citizens to abandon their property.

 The First Citizen character disagrees, and says: “Ay, so the grasshopper doth spend the time In mirthful jollity till winter come, And then too late he would redeem his time, When frozen cold hath nipped his careless head.”

The First Citizen is saying that it is to be better safe than sorry. He even says: “’tis good to fear the worst.”

King Edward III
Wikimedia Commons

This is subtle but persuasive evidence that Shakespeare wrote this scene, and it therefore supports the idea that he wrote the entire play.

Shakespeare is alluding to Aesop’s Fable The Ant and the Grasshopper — in which the short-sighted grasshopper spent the summer having fun, while the far-sighted ant spent the same time storing up food to prepare for winter. Of course, when winter comes, the grasshopper pays dearly for his idleness.

"The Ant and the Grasshopper", from Aesop's Fables
Wikimedia Commons

Why would Shakespeare include this allusion to Aesop’s Fable?

Shakespeare had heard such public debates about wars, and the threat of invasion. 

The Spanish Armada threat in 1588, which included plans to actually invade and conquer England with the so-called "Invincible Armada" fleet, was just one of many such threats during Shakespeare’s life. He would have heard the constables, the mayors and other public officials debate plans for war, and how best to prepare.

Shakespeare’s own father, John Shakespeare, was occasionally in charge of mustering soldiers and collecting money to pay for war efforts, and national defence.

We know now, with the benefit of hindsight, that the Spanish never did invade and conquer England. But to people in communities like Stratford-Upon-Avon, they had very real fears of such attack at the time.

It is helpful to remember that Spain was the one and only superpower nation in the 16th Century. England would not be an empire until many years later.

Invincible Armada
Wikimedia Commons

So, with this otherwise simple scene, Shakespeare was reflecting the real fears, and the real debate that was being had across all of England. 

It could even be said that, with this scene, Shakespeare was inviting the public to engage in more open debate about the fate of England. It was their England, too. Perhaps Shakespeare was making a point that the nation did not only belong to the elites and the nobility.

This is not the kind of scene that an aristocrat like the Earl of Oxford, or elitist playwrights like Christopher Marlowe, would even bother to include.

Also, Shakespeare used the fable as a simple and efficient tool to communicate his point to his audience. By using one of Aesop’s Fables, he was referring to something that almost everyone had read or had heard about. 

In other words, he was making it easy for his audience to know what was being said.

Christopher Marlowe was the opposite. In Doctor Faustus, for example, he uses so many Latin phrases, which would have been unintelligible to an audience that did not have the benefit of a school education. Marlowe was showing off, not for the common man, but rather for the elites and the noble Lords and Ladies.

This demonstrates how Shakespeare was reaching out to his audience, rather than speaking above their heads.  He did not write just for the elites. He wrote for everyone, especially for the lower and unschooled classes. 

C. Walter Hodges' imagined reconstruction of Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice, act 1, scene 3, being performed in an Elizabethan theatre. Drawn for The Globe Restored, published by Ernest Benn, 1953. Folger Shakespeare Library
Wikimedia Commons

It should come as no surprise then that the Citizen is the wisest character in the scene!

Shakespeare has a Citizen make a better argument, for being abundantly cautious, than the foolish Frenchman.

Why would Shakespeare call the characters First Frenchman and First Citizen? He could have just made them all Citizens, or Frenchmen.

It appears that Shakespeare is making a contrast between the characters based on class — the Frenchman is a nobleman, and the Citizen is a commoner.

Therefore, in writing this apparently simple scene, Shakespeare is making many points.

He is speaking directly to the audience that can’t afford seats, and has to stand for 2 to 3 hours. 

He is speaking in a language that they recognize.

He is giving them a voice, putting words in the mouth of a commoner, who has more wisdom than his so-called superiors.

That sounds precisely like the Shakespeare I know.

Shakespeare knew that the wisdom of the common man was greater and better because they could not afford to live their lives in “mirthful jollity” like their so-called superiors. Shakespeare lived in the real world, where you had to store food for the winter, a cold season that always comes.

This is only one scene, in one play, that has been overlooked.

It makes you wonder how many more unseen “grasshoppers” are hiding in his words.

Cheers,


David B. Schajer


Friday, November 3, 2017

Shakespeare Derangement Syndrome


Some people have doubts about Shakespeare, about whether the man from Stratford was the real author of the plays and poems.

Brittanica Shakespeare Death-Mask
Wikimedia Commons

I have no problem with that. Doubt is good, healthy even.

But some people are so convinced that Shakespeare was not Shakespeare, that they go to great lengths to prove that the man from Stratford was a fake.

This is beginning to look a lot like some sort of Shakespeare Derangement Syndrome.

I just read about how Alexander Waugh now claims that he has deciphered some kind of secret code, of “funny dots” inside the 1609 edition of the Sonnets.

He argues that this code — of “hidden geometries” and “grid patterns” — proves that Shakespeare’s remains are actually buried in Westminster Abbey (not in Stratford’s Trinity Church) and that the real Shakespeare is actually Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford.

Mr. Waugh presented his evidence at the Globe in London. He was accompanied by the eminent actors Derek Jacobi and Mark Rylance, both long-time supporters of the theory that Oxford is the true Shakespeare.

Stratford’s Trinity Church and Shakespeare’s Birthplace Trust have taken issue with these claims, which they find to be a “fantasy.”

With all due respect to Waugh, Jacobi and Rylance — such theories are deranged.

They are doing great harm to the name and legacy of Shakespeare.

I beg them to stop.

If they have any love for the words in the poems and the plays, the characters and the plots, the high drama and the low comedy, they should just stop. They should spend more time reading and learning about who the real Shakespeare was.

To present alternative theories as somehow factual, or to lend their names to legitimize claims like this, is to undermine the entire foundation that is Shakespeare.

They are diminishing the importance and significance of his work.

They are killing Shakespeare.

I don’t usually bother writing about Edward de Vere, and the theory that he is the true Shakespeare. 

I am not sure I can persuade people that the true Shakespeare was Shakespeare. I have even considered writing a series of blog posts, or even a book to prove it. But some people are going to believe what they want to believe, no matter what, and no matter how deranged it is. 

I don’t think that such blog posts and/or books would be persuasive enough. 

Also, I don’t consider myself a scholar, but more of a storyteller. I don’t want to spend my time criticizing other peoples’ theories about Shakespeare. Instead of criticizing, I chose to learn and to create.

First, I chose to spend my time researching everything I could about Shakespeare himself, and the period in general — all in order to tell his story of the true Shakespeare, the man from Stratford.

I didn’t just want an overview of the period. I wanted a granular understanding of the people and the ideas of the Elizabethan era.

There is so much I have learned, and so much that I have discovered, hiding in plain sight on the internet, and in books.

I did not study about just Shakespeare. I read about his contemporaries, like the Earl of Leicester, the Earl of Essex, King Philip of Spain, and many others.

Why was King Philip of Spain significant to Shakespeare?
Wikimedia Commons

Over the years, during my research, I even came to appreciate the Earl of Oxford. I think he is a very misunderstood man. I am actually quite sympathetic to the man that Oxford was.

But the scant evidence that Oxford is the real Shakespeare pales in comparison to the overwhelming direct and circumstantial evidence that the real Shakespeare was the man from Stratford.

The mistake that many people make, in studying Shakespeare, is not paying enough attention to the other people and events in his life. Another huge mistake is that people don’t read the books Shakespeare was reading, like Ovid’s Metamorphoses, Virgil’s Aeneid, and so many more.

Why was Ovid so important to Shakespeare?
Wikimedia Commons

Over the last 400 years, there are so many false assumptions we have made about Shakespeare. There is also some scholarship that is wrong or misleading.

But the worst thing that has happened to Shakespeare is this pernicious authorship question. 

Whoever thinks that Shakespeare is not Shakespeare, and that the true author was Southampton, or Oxford, is being fooled and misled. 

They are being deceived by what should be considered Shakespearean “fake news.”

I have a theory about people who believe in Oxford as the real Shakespeare. I think they just don’t know Shakespeare well enough. 

They make convoluted theories and try to decipher dots on a page of the Sonnets.

They cut up Shakespeare into pieces, and reassemble something that is not really Shakespeare. It’s like verbal photo-shopping, done with the intention of ultimately erasing the real Shakespeare from the picture.

They take quotes from the plays and poems out of context. They  twist and contort their meaning.

They want to tell you who Shakespeare is, based on their limited knowledge and personal bias against him, in order to falsely represent him.

In this way, they are using whatever lack of knowledge you have of Shakespeare against you. They consider themselves the elite, and think that their elitist views are somehow superior to whatever you might think about Shakespeare.

This is like judging a man guilty on hearsay evidence, gossip, rumors, libel, or slander — after he is dead and can’t take the stand to defend himself!

They want you to lose your faith in Shakespeare. They want to discredit him, disgrace him, and taint him in your eyes.

Shakespeare loved plays with scenes with courtroom climaxes. Here is one from Merchant of Venice:

Court scene from Shakespeare's "The Merchant of Venice"
by Aleksander Gierymski
Wikimedia Commons

At the end of this courtroom scene, Shylock's suit is dismissed on an artificial technicality introduced by someone pretending to be a lawyer.

By the end of the play, Shylock is a ruined man, and has almost nothing but his name.

What the Oxfordians and others are doing is dismissing Shakespeare, by pretending to be authorities on his work, and introducing evidence they have manufactured.

They would have Shakespeare ruined, without even allowing him the benefit of his own name.

This makes me upset, since I know that Shakespeare was not only a good and decent man, but he was a great man, and a man of unusual courage and uncommon talent.

I feel like the Shakespeare I know is accused of being a cowardly and ungifted thief.

Those who claim that Shakespeare has stolen Oxford’s legacy are bearing false witness, and perverting justice.

So, in order to prove that they are wrong, I will soon release my first novel. I have planned many more, to create whole series of novels.

This first novel is about how a young man from Stratford, the son of a glove-maker, came to London and began his career — all set against the looming Spanish Armada, and the power politics in the Queen’s royal court.

You won’t just have to take my word for it, that I solved Shakespeare.

You will see it with your own eyes, as you walk in the world that Shakespeare knew. 

I will not cut up Shakespeare into pieces, and tell his story out of context. My novels put you in his shoes, and in his original historical context.

I will not photo-shop him out of the picture. I put him back, front and center.

I don’t want you to judge him by the words or gossip that other people say. I want you to see him for yourself. I want you to hear what he has to say, in his own words.

I want him to take the stand, and testify for himself.

I don’t want to re-present him. I want to present him to you as honestly and as comprehensively as possible.

That is almost entirely possible to do as a scholar, with a book of scholarship. But with a novel, it is much easier for you to travel inside Shakespeare’s mind, and transport yourself back to his world.

I am taking a page from Shakespeare’s book. He did not write works of scholarship, or create chronicles about history. He wrote lines of dialogue and created characters, sometimes about real historical figures, for our minds to interpret and behold for ourselves.

You might say my forthcoming novels are Shakespearean stories about Shakespeare himself.

I can prove that Shakespeare was the real Shakespeare. I have the more than enough evidence to prove him as the real author.

But it will take time for me to write and publish my novels, and lay out my case, for you to judge for yourselves.

Within a chapter or two, I am confident that you will be agree that the Shakespeare I am presenting is the real one.

I have every confidence that no such series of novels could ever be created for the sake of the Earl of Oxford, or anyone else for that matter.

I hope you will join me on this journey. I know that it will not only show you the real Shakespeare, but it will prove that he was not some fraud, and that he was not just lucky.

I hope to restore your faith in Shakespeare.

Shakespeare was and always will be Shakespeare


Cheers,


David B. Schajer