qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmrtyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwerty

Was Shakespeare A Fraud?

A Banker’s Perspective

11 November 2011

©Tim Lea

www.thepelicancode.com

Was Shakespeare A Fraud?

A Banker’s Perspective | © Tim Lea 2011

www.thepelicancode.com

Synopsis of The Pelican Code In Padova, Northern Italy, a letter, a painting and three leather bound books are found. Together they represent coded clues that would unlock one of the greatest unsolved mysteries of all time – was Shakespeare a Fraud? Competing forces come together in a David and Goliath battle to secure the material in a fight between passion and greed – the passion to prove Shakespeare was a fraud and the need to protect powerful, vested interests. The Pelican Code is a contemporary thriller that takes you on a journey that twists and turns, flashing back to 1593, providing an insight into the authorship question and culminating in a climax you won’t predict. Was Shakespeare A Fraud? You decide……… If you would like a free sample of part of the book please click here.

Brought To You By

Was Shakespeare A Fraud?

A Banker’s Perspective | © Tim Lea 2011

www.thepelicancode.com

About The Author Of This Article

Tim Lea was born in England and for the last 9 years has been living in Sydney, Australia. Over his 20-year career in the financial industry he has focused primarily on commercial finance, but has always been a passionate writer of screenplays and short films. His fascination with Shakespeare began when he first met a documentary filmmaker who questioned Shakespeare’s authorship, inspiring his book, The Pelican Code.

After analysing Shakespeare’s educational, psychological and business profiles and researching the circumstantial evidence surrounding the great playwright, Tim was hooked. He felt there was no way that Shakespeare was the creative and literary genius that the Establishment had been promoting for four hundred years. He was motivated to write a book that explored the possibility that if proof was found that Shakespeare did not write his own works, how would different groups react? On the one hand, The Establishment – who would be keen to maintain the status quo and protect their vested interests, and on the other those driven by the passion to solve a mystery that has

eluded researchers and scholars alike for hundreds of years. Imagine a world where Shakespeare was no longer the cultural baseline for Western Culture, no longer the most influential man of the millennium. There’s a lot at stake.

Tim spent eight years researching and writing The Pelican Code and is ready to push the boundaries of “The Establishment.”

Tim has written and published numerous articles on many different subjects including the misinterpretation of language and international slang. He is a published author in corporate finance. His last book was entitled A Guide to Factoring and Invoice Discounting – The New Bankers.

Tim is an economics graduate, with a Masters in Economics and an MBA from English Universities. The Pelican Code is his first eBook novel. For a FREE SAMPLE of the book to download please visit The Pelican Code

Was Shakespeare A Fraud?

A Banker’s Perspective | © Tim Lea 2011

www.thepelicancode.com

Abstract The issue of the Authorship of Shakespeare is once again centre stage, with the Academic Establishment fluffing its scholastic feathers as they see their domain once again being infiltrated. This time, however, things are different – very different. It is perhaps the most serious threat to the Status Quo of the authorship debate the Academic Establishment has faced to date. In the past, niche books on the niche theories about the alternative authors of Shakespeare have been released to their respective partisan die-hards, but never before has something been seen in the mainstream that has the potential to change the authorship zeitgeist - for good. The latest threat is very real in the form of a heavily financed film from a major Hollywood studio that has the power to distribute its core controversial message world-wide and causing Pandora’s box to be opened up for good. The film’s call to arms is reminiscent of the Kiwis’ Haka in the Rugby World Cup Final with their strap line “Was Shakespeare A Fraud?” bound to incite a reaction. This aggressive, testosterone fuelled call to arms you would think would draw an equally aggressive responsive. Collective action was certainly seen – but was more reminiscent of a troupe of Morris Dancers, with flailing hankies, bobbling bells and clashing sticks. To coincide with the launch of the movie Anonymous in the UK on 28 October the “Stratfordians”, i.e. those who support Shakespeare as the author of his works, launched the following direct action:

Road signs containing the word Shakespeare were covered up with black tape.

Public Houses Names containing the name Shakespeare were covered up and

A cherry picker installed a 30 metre white sheet over Shakespeare’s monument in Stratford Upon Avon, the (alleged) author’s birthplace. (see the BBC article for further details)

This direct action sought to highlight how the UK would look without Shakespeare, although judging by the various forum postings and blog posters this appears to have backfired as many people actually see the hiding of Shakespeare’s name as an indication that he did not write his own works, with many believing the Film Studio instigated the action. Either way it has certainly generated marked publicity for the film world-wide, playing directly into the hands of the film makers - still the partisan die-hards liked it – pass me another hanky will you?. So how does corporate banking fit into this battle zone? I am a corporate financier and banker of around 20 years standing, perhaps not the most exciting way to start off a contentious article about the authenticity of Shakespeare. Creativity and finance are usually considered mutually exclusive as financiers’ creative baseline is generally limited to the number of different ways they can say No! in a post GFC laden world. Sorry to perhaps shatter the illusion of banking stereotypes, but I have also been researching the subject of Shakespeare’s capability as a literary and creative genius for 8 years whilst writing my novel The Pelican Code, a contemporary thriller about proof being found that if publically released would prove once and for all Shakespeare did not write his own works. During my 8 years of research into the authorship subject, I have been drawn closer and closer to understanding the actual character of Shakespeare, beyond the myth of “Brand Shakespeare”. In this article my aim is not to disparage the works of Shakespeare – far from it they are unquestionably beautiful pieces of work. Instead my aim is to look at Shakespeare’s “bona fides” from the perspective of a corporate banker; to look closely at his documented business transactions to provide insight into who the man really was by critically examining the cold hard facts of his business life and interpreting them on the basis of business and financial logic.

Was Shakespeare A Fraud?

A Banker’s Perspective | © Tim Lea 2011

www.thepelicancode.com

My conclusions will upset the Stratfordians but are based around my experience as a corporate banker as to how I would examine the business activities of a prospective customer as a determinant of their character. On the basis of the documentary evidence available, supported by business and financial logic I have concluded that:

Shakespeare was a regular commodities trader that dealt in illegal goods – like his father.

Shakespeare was a money lender, like his father.

Shakespeare aggressively pursued those that owed him money and on the balance of possibility could have been a “stand-over man” in relation to higher interest loans he made.

Shakespeare was in default with his taxes, with even the veiled threat of a trip to the debtor’s prison, failing to provide sufficient incentive to clear the default in favour of instigating illegal business activities.

Shakespeare had substantial assets that were hidden from the authorities so much so that at the time if current anti-money laundering laws were in place, a significant feature of modern day banking, he could, at best, be facing confiscation of said assets and, at worst, be facing a long stretch courtesy of the penal system.

My overall summation of the character of Shakespeare based upon his business transactions is that he was in fact a hard nosed business man who was a high risk taker, who ensconced himself in the black economy, lent money and aggressively chased his debts. Altogether it provides substantial credence to the concept that he was not the writer of the plays attributed to his name but that instead was the business brains behind “Brand Shakespeare” acting as a front for someone else who was the creative and literary genius. The existence of “ghost writers” for example Edward De Vere as postulated in the film Anonymous, Christopher Marlowe or Sir Francis Bacon – the two other main contenders in the authorship debate are the continuing subject matter in my ongoing blog Was Shakespeare A Fraud? Was Shakespeare A Fraud? This banker says Yes! But you decide for yourself on the basis of the facts and interpretations enclosed. Tim Lea 11

th November 2011

Getting In Touch With The Author If you have any feedback or comments regarding this article or would like to publish all or part of the article within your site. blog or newsletter please do not hesitate to contact the author at pelicancode @ gmail.com (space deliberately included within email address to stop spammers and their infernal automated “robots”).

Was Shakespeare A Fraud?

A Banker’s Perspective | © Tim Lea 2011

www.thepelicancode.com

Introduction

Shakespeare has been considered to be the greatest writer of our time, writing 37 fantastic plays and 154 beautiful sonnets in his lifetime. His works contained over 20,000 different words, of which almost 2,000 that were new to the dictionary. The quality of the works is undoubted and I think that even as a banker I can totally agree with the Stratfordians on that point. However before we look at the banking analysis of Shakespeare’s business transactions I want to summarize for those of you who may be new to the authorship debate the 10 key reasons why those who have scratched beneath the surface of “Brand Shakespeare” find it hard to believe he is the creative and literary genius that the Establishment would have us believe (for further details on these issues check out my blog Was Shakespeare A Fraud? , which also contain links to my series of YouTube videos).

Top 10 Reasons Why Shakespeare Is Considered A Fraud

1) Shakespeare’s parents were illiterate – we know this from seeing documents signed by both parents – his father signed them with the picture of a Glover’s compass, his mother with the picture of a running horse.

2) His own 2 daughters were illiterate – we know this from their signatures in their respective marriage certificates and other anecdotal evidence.

3) We have no documented evidence that Shakespeare even attended school – let alone University. The only evidence of school attendance is anecdotal from Shakespeare’s biography undertaken by Nicholas Rowe In 1709, wherein it was detailed Shakespeare was taken out of school by his father in 1578 (when Shakespeare was 14 years old) to help with his father’s ailing business (this anecdote was based on Rowe’s discussions with a travelling actor of the time). It is also assumed Shakespeare went to school because his father was an Alderman of Stratford (a member of the local council) and would have had access to free education for his children as a benefit of the public position held.

4) No original manuscripts of any of his 37 fantastic plays or 154 beautiful sonnets have EVER been found.

5) No original letters from Shakespeare to anybody have EVER been found and there is only one letter ever seen actually addressed to Shakespeare – and even this one wasn’t delivered.

6) In fact all we have in Shakespeare’s own hand after 52 years of genius, 37 plays and 154 Sonnets are 6 Scrawled Signatures and that is it. Even then, each of the six signatures is spelt differently – three of them within the same document – his will. (Just as an aside, Shakespeare’s signature is said to be worth around $5m if you can find one – so get hunting in those attics.)

7) There was no literary legacy in his will – no books no manuscripts nothing that would reflect the literary genius of Shakespeare.

8) Whilst there were unofficial publications of his plays (called quartos and often inaccurate recollections of actors of the performed plays), the first official publication of his works came 7 years after his death in 1623 with the production of the First Folio. Other playwrights had plays officially published in their lifetimes.

9) Where does he find the time to write his plays and sonnets? He is proven to have been an actor (in other writers’ plays as well as his “own”) so given plays were performed in the afternoon (as there was no artificial light to perform to) and rehearsals needing to be undertaken in the morning – he would have had to have written at night – without natural light. Candles were very expensive at the time so he would have had to have written in public places where candles were provided - such as taverns. Plus if we consider all his other business activities, where does the time come from to write high quality plays – this is without even considering the technical challenges of working with a quill and ink.

10) The Italian Connection – so many of Shakespeare’s plays have an in-depth insight into Italy and day to day Italian life – a place he never live in or visited – officially at least.

Was Shakespeare A Fraud?

A Banker’s Perspective | © Tim Lea 2011

www.thepelicancode.com

So the question that most reasonable people ask who delve into the man behind the myth of Shakespeare is “where do the fundamentals come from to create and write such a magnificent portfolio of work?”

Unfortunately this standpoint gets worse as we consider his business activities from a banking perspective.

Shakespeare’s Business Activities

In seeking to explore all the issues in such a controversial subject as Was Shakespeare A Fraud?, we need to be particularly mindful that the records of Elizabethan times are, at best, patchy and, at worst, hard to piece together. By virtue of the passage of time many records have been destroyed in key events (e.g. in the Great Fire of London of 1666) or would have deteriorated through the passage of time with many records having originally been stored on parchment paper or manuscript. As a result with reasonable expectation the documentary evidence we are analyzing is in all likelihood just the tip of the financial iceberg in regards the actual level of Shakespeare’s business activities.

So let’s start, with Shakespeare’s background to see if there are influences that can point to his creative or business genius.

a) Shakespeare’s Background

In considering William Shakespeare’s motivations and his fundamental skillsets, lets begin by considering his background by assessing the actions of his parents and in particular his father, John Shakespeare, to see whether there was a natural platform for a creative or a business mind.

Now whilst background is never an automatic indicator of literary or creative excellence, it is always useful to examine it to see the influences that might have been seen later in William Shakespeare’s adult life. Indeed, there are facets of Shakespeare’s background that do seem to repeat themselves as we shall see – like father like son.

b) His Father’s Business Activities

John Shakespeare was a Glover by trade, making leather gloves for the nobility of Elizabethan times and had his own business. Now as was typical in Elizabethan times because of the relatively small populations of the towns (Stratford had an estimated population of 1,500 at the time of William Shakespeare) individuals would often assume multiple business roles, as indeed we see today in smaller, generally rural, communities. Indeed John Shakespeare did have multiple roles – 2 of them illegal.

i. Money lending – there are two recorded cases in 1570 that John Shakespeare was in the Usury Court for charging usury interest rates of 20% and 25% per annum, which were both in breach of a statute of 1552 that set a ceiling of 10% per annum maximum interest levels. These cases against John Shakespeare were recorded in the Exchequer, King’s Rememberancer, memoranda Roll, E159/359, Recorda, Hil. 215 and 237 respectively – both currently held in the Public Records Office. They showed by implication that John Shakespeare had a capital base of at least £180 to lend (approximately $72,000 in today’s monetary value).

ii. Wool dealing – called “Brogging” in Elizabethan times. Brogging was illegal (but tolerated in small volumes providing the markets were not unduly affected). In 1572, however, John Shakespeare was formally charged with brogging, although it is not clear what actual actions were taken as a result of being charged. In the absence of any penalties we can only assume he received a “slap on the wrist” (Donalto Conucci reference), which might have been given to him given his high profile public position as an Alderman of Stratford. However by 1576, brogging had become a significant

Was Shakespeare A Fraud?

A Banker’s Perspective | © Tim Lea 2011

www.thepelicancode.com

problem for the Elizabethan economy with the wool markets being adversely affected, with the rising price of wool making it difficult to sell wool overseas and thereby compromising the taxable revenues that Elizabeth 1

st could generate. As a result in

late 1576 Queen Elizabeth formally banned Brogging for a period of 11 months. The end result of this ban resulted in John Shakespeare being out of the Brogging business, which led to three key events:

a. Financial difficulties – this is highlighted both directly in 1578 with him being in arrears with his taxes and from being under pressure from his creditors forcing the family to mortgage his wife Mary’s estate in 1579.

b. According to William Shakespeare’s biography written by Nicholas Rowe in 1709 anecdotally Shakespeare was also taken out of school, aged 14 to help in his father’s ailing business.

c. The ban on brogging also formally exposed him as an illegal trader resulting in him losing the position of an Alderman of Stratford, with his last public office appearance being that of 5

th December 1577.

Now whilst being involved in his father’s business dealings would not preclude a creative baseline for Shakespeare, we can see that his father was a serious risk taker and a business man, and that if Shakespeare had been forced to leave school to join his father’s business activities as suggested by Rowe’s biography, it is likely he would have built at the very least rudimentary business skills that would have carried him forward. Indeed, documentary evidence shows that he followed in his father’s footsteps in more ways than one.

c) Shakespeare Was A Trader

We have seen from his father’s background, John Shakespeare was a brogger – and given William joined his father in his business, we can reasonably conclude he would have got an understanding of business in general, and trading in particular. Brogging would have put the family in touch with many of the local farmers, and indeed we can conclude that the family would have been very well connected within the local farming community around Stratford. It can be seen from subsequent documentary evidence that William used this experience to further his own financial ends.

i. His Legal Activities

On 1st December 1598 there is a handwritten note from within the Stratford Chamber Account

recording a “Bill of Sale” for one load of “Stone”. Now this is not where Shakespeare has bought stone – this is where he has sold stone. This Bill Of Sale, which is held within the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust Records office, is from a Gentleman called Wyllyn Wyatt Chamberlin "Pd to Mr. Shakespere for one load of stone xd" (Shakespeare Birthplace Trust Records Office, Corp. Rec., Chamberlain's Accounts, 1585-1619, p. 44).

Now one bill of sale does not make a trader, and it could conceivably be seen to be a one-off – but when we view this bill of sale against the backdrop of his other activities, we can begin to see an underlying trend building.

In 1604 there is a court record to show William Shakespeare sued the apothecary Philip Rogers for 35s.10d (approximately $700 in today’s money) plus 10 shillings damages (c$200), seeking to recover an unpaid balance on the sale of malt and a small loan (Again this document is available to view in the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust Records Office, MS. ER 27/5). This court document highlights three key features

a) He was a trader b) His willingness to sue people for small amounts of money (more of this later) c) He was a money lender (more of this later).

Was Shakespeare A Fraud?

A Banker’s Perspective | © Tim Lea 2011

www.thepelicancode.com

ii. His Illegal Activities

In 1598, however, documentary evidence confirms William Shakespeare was involved in illegal trading activity with this coming from the List of Hoarders dated 2

nd April 1598. At the

time, it was illegal to deal in malt and corn because of the severe shortages, indeed famine conditions, that were being seen in England at the time. The government wanted to maintain tight control over the production of malt and corn and made it illegal to trade or hold quantities of malt or corn.

Shakespeare was named in the list of hoarders as having illegally held 10 quarters (or 80 bushels) of malt or corn during this time of famine. Now 80 Bushels is the modern day equivalent of about 3,000 litres of corn – that is the equivalent of a complete barn full of illegal malt and corn! (The record of him being on the Hoarders list is stored in the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust Records Office, Misc. Doc. I, 106).

So what does the above illegal activity tell us about William Shakespeare? Well let’s apply some business and banking logic to this documentary evidence.

Given Shakespeare’s father John lost much of his status (and his wealth) as a direct result of being exposed as an illegal brogger, William Shakespeare would have seen the disastrous consequences of getting involved in illegal trading and hoarding activities first hand. Yet he knowingly undertakes this illegal activity. So what does this say?

Like all of us within the finance and banking business, we are in the business of risk – we lend money and identify the risks of getting it back – or not as the case may be. William Shakespeare would have made decisions based on the age-old premise of risk versus reward – whether consciously or unconsciously. Fundamental human behaviour, especially business behaviour, doesn’t change – only the timeframes and legal frameworks. So he would have consciously made the overall business decision to hoard. But let’s take the analysis one stage further.

As in any illegal transactions today, there are risks to all counterparties involved – the buyers, the sellers and the middleman. In this framework there has to be mutual trust all round. Without it, how can you be sure details of your illegal activities won’t be passed on to the respective authorities, with all counterparties receiving the punishment laid down in law? So in order to co-ordinate the illegal hoarding activities of 3,000 litres of malt & corn

– He would have needed to know the farmers/sellers he was buying from very well – and they would have needed to know him very well.

– He would have needed to know the ultimate customers he was going to sell to very well – and they would have needed to know him very well.

For the transactions on all sides to work, trust would almost certainly have had to have been built up over many years and almost certainly over many transactions, as in any form of business dealings, especially those that are illegal and required higher levels of mutual trust. Whilst being associated with his father’s early historic brogging activities would have given William Shakespeare exposure to the local farming community, logic would suggest with reasonable expectation that local farmers would probably have had to deal with William Shakespeare directly on many occasions to build up trust in him; especially given he was spending most of his time in London, pursuing his acting career. On the other hand, we could also consider that Shakespeare being based in London may conveniently have provided the Stratford farmers with a trusted source of distribution for their products in the city.

This trust and longevity of relationships with the farmers would be especially important given the volume of corn that was hoarded (3,000 litres) and the likely number of farmers that would be required to act as suppliers, especially given there were severe shortages at the time.

Was Shakespeare A Fraud?

A Banker’s Perspective | © Tim Lea 2011

www.thepelicancode.com

So it is a conscious decision by Shakespeare to hoard assessing:

1. the reward of capitalising upon the shortages, and therefore the future potential profit versus

2. The risks of getting caught.

Unfortunately there is no evidence to know what the end result of William Shakespeare being on the hoarders list but it does say to me as a banker that there was very careful, pre-meditated business logic being implemented behind this decision to hoard. But there is one question that is critical as a banker once more - how does he finance these illegal transactions? Again let’s use some finance and business logic to ascertain the cashflow of the position.

Shakespeare did not own farmland at this time (he did however purchase land in 1602). As a result, he would have needed to buy product from farmers. The farmers, however, wouldn’t provide Shakespeare with malt and corn at zero cost – they would have families to feed and given the famine in place would have had limited produce to sell. So from their cashflow perspective they would want hard cash – not credit – credit doesn’t put food on the family table especially if times were tough and famine was prevalent. So William Shakespeare would with reasonable expectation have had to finance this hoarding through the use of cash with no “official” records kept for fear of being caught – cash doesn’t talk and neither do records that “don’t exist”. Equally, why would a farmer sell to Shakespeare if they could sell in the open market? With reasonable expectation Shakespeare would have had to pay a premium for the product to give the farmers an incentive to sell to him.

So let’s look at William Shakespeare’s cashflow to see how and where he could have financed these transactions using documentary evidence from around this time.

d) Shakespeare’s Cashflow

William Shakespeare was known to be an actor. The first documentary evidence being from his acting credits in plays dating from 1592, when he was first described in a pamphlet called the “Groatsworth of Wit” as an “upstart crow”. Now actors and writers were generally paid poorly. The issue is, however, that his cash flow for the period 1597 – 1598, when the hoarding activities happened, was very poor. We can judge this poor cashflow from his tax returns.

i) Shakespeare’s tax returns and his cashflow

On 15th November 1597 there are records form the King's Remembrancer Subsidy Roll which

detail William Shakespeare as being a tax defaulter in the Bishopgate tax district, with him showing as a defaulter having failed to pay his assessment (E. 179/146/354). You can view the National Archive document here (The National Archives is the UK government's official archive of public documents).

Let’s just consider this for a moment:

He is a defaulter on his taxes – in other words he is not just someone who owes money having been assessed but he is in default for a payment outstanding. In other words his cashflow is very weak. So what was the extent of this default?

Now our generic assumptions of “Brand Shakespeare” would pre-suppose any default would be very extensive because our belief in the brand is that his earnings from writing were extensive and he was very successful. The answer is a little surprising to say the least.

Was Shakespeare A Fraud?

A Banker’s Perspective | © Tim Lea 2011

www.thepelicancode.com

The extent of his tax default was 5 shillings. Now given £1 in Elizabethan days is the equivalent to approximately $400 today, this means he was a defaulter to the tune of about $100 today. Now in reality this is not a significant amount of money, so what does his default say to us:

His cashflow is very, very weak.

His earnings capability is low as he cannot pay this small sum of money back during the normal course of his working activities – and so for all you insolvency specialists, because he could not pay his debts as and when they fell due, Shakespeare was technically insolvent.

One other thing to also bear in mind is that a tax default in Elizabethan times could ultimately result in being sent to the Clink - the debtors’ prison – so there are ramifications if he continued not to pay his tax bill, so the clock is ticking if he doesn’t pay.

So going back to the issue of hoarding as we examined earlier, Shakespeare is in default for his taxes for $100 yet he manages to finance the hoarding of 3,000 litres of malt and corn, most likely to be on a cash basis from our business and finance logic – it just doesn’t stack up.

But here is another kicker that makes things very, very difficult to reconcile.

Earlier in the same year of his tax default, he actually bought the second largest house in Stratford - New Place. Unfortunately the original house was demolished and re-built in 1702 – but an image of the house was drawn by George Vertue in 1737 from contemporary descriptions and the house was far from being small:

The house, which was bought in April 1597 was said to have:

– 10 fireplaces (each of which were a taxable luxury) – 2 barns – 2 gardens – 2 orchards

Reference Bryson, Bill (2008). Shakespeare: The World as a Stage. London: Harper Perennial. p. 119. ISBN 9780007197903.

The exact purchase price of the property is not precisely known but documentary evidence at the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust shows property documents where Shakespeare paid a fine of £60 ($24,000 at today’s money) for the house which according to Schoenbaum (William

Shakespeare: A Documentary Life. New York: Oxford University, 1975) "may well seem absurdly low; but in fines of this period the consideration mentioned is customarily a legal fiction.”

In order to provide a more appropriate current day point of reference, by visiting the property site findaproperty.com and searching under Stratford Upon Avon a number of large 6 bedroom houses with land show up in the searches with a current market valuation of around £1.5m (c $2.4m)). There are smaller six bedroom houses of very basic design and little land for about £700,000 (c $1.1m). So with reasonable expectation the property could reasonably be said to have an effective current valuation in the mid-range – around $1.75m – clearly a significant sum for a struggling actor.

This ability to fund the purchase of a large property is made worse when we consider another feature within Shakespeare’s tax default records.

The original document from the National Archives together with their interpreted transcript can be seen here. It actually shows in addition to the tax default an assessment of William

Was Shakespeare A Fraud?

A Banker’s Perspective | © Tim Lea 2011

www.thepelicancode.com

Shakespeare’s net worth (the value of his belongings as defined in the Transcript document). From the original ledger the following figures are seen:

William Shackspeare........ v li........ v s

(The spelling is as seen within the transcript – please click here for an interesting article that references all the different spellings of Shakespeare – there are over 80 variants in various reference documents)

The ledger above shows, according to the National Archives transcript of this document, his net worth was £5 (the “v li” above) (c $2,000) and his tax default was “v s” (five shillings ($100)).

Indeed, it is noteworthy later in the year he is on the hoarders list, on 1st October 1598, his tax

arrears got bigger growing to the grand total of 13s 4d – the equivalent of $260 (Record no. E. 179/146/369).

But the irreconcilability of William Shakespeare gets even worse ……..

e) William Shakespeare - the Money Lender

As we have seen earlier William Shakespeare’s father, John, was a money lender, having been in the Usury Court twice for illegally charging interest rates of around 20% and 25% per annum. Now whilst we have no actual documentary evidence to show William Shakespeare in the same court as his father, there are 2 letters that have been found that give us an indication that he may have followed in his father’s footsteps, yet again.

Bearing in mind the first letter is the only copy of a letter that has ever been found that was actually addressed to Shakespeare – although the letter was never actually delivered.

a) The Gentleman who wrote the letter was a Richard Quiney, writing it on October 25

th 1598, which was undelivered but was addressed to Shakespeare. In

the letter the following wording was seen when Quiney was asking for a 30 pound loan ($12,000):

"To my Loveinge good ffrend & contreymann mr wm Shackespre" who "shall ffrende me muche in helpeing me out of all the debettes I owe in London I thancke god & muche quiet my mynde which wolde nott be indebeted" (Shakespeare Birthplace Trust Records Office, MS. ER 27/4).

A second letter also re-inforces the idea that Shakespeare was a money lender

b) A Gentleman called Abraham Sturley wrote a letter dated 24th

January 1598 to his brother-in-law stating that

"our countriman mr Shaksper is willing to disburse some monei upon some od yardeland or other Shottrei or neare about us..." (Shakespeare Birthplace Trust Records Office, Misc. Doc. I, 135).

Now whilst no contracts have ever been seen, the above letters would clearly give an indication to any to any reasonable person that at worst Shakespeare was thought of as someone who was either willing to lend monies or at best someone who had lent money – after all why would someone take the trouble to write to Shakespeare if they thought he had no access to cash and no willingness to release it/loan it.

Was Shakespeare A Fraud?

A Banker’s Perspective | © Tim Lea 2011

www.thepelicancode.com

Equally, from our earlier analysis, we saw how the court document of 1604 references a “small loan”. As a result, with reasonable expectation, it is likely that Shakespeare was a money lender.

So at a time when Shakespeare:

1) Was a struggling actor, 2) Had no cash flow, 3) Had no significant sustainable earnings 4) Had a tax default of 5s ($100) looming over his head and 5) Total Assets that had a value of £5 (c $2,000)

He found the cash to:

Buy a large property, with reasonable expectation worth around $1.75m in today’s money, requiring daily upkeep, accruing additional tax liabilities and incurring day to day expenses –not even taking into consideration he had a wife and two children to support.

Buy a barn full of illegal malt and corn with the sole aim of hoarding with the aim of profiteering

Have a “casual” £30 ($12,000) lying around that he would be willing to lend.

As a banker it just doesn’t stack up. In today’s environment of extensive, world-wide Anti-Money Laundering legislation we would have to deeply question where did he get the money from and indeed in asking two fellow bankers on the basis of the facts would they even open a bank account for this person today – the answer was an emphatic no!.

So let’s try to gauge how serious a businessman Shakespeare was. If business and money were a fundamental baseline to his psyche, one indication of the seriousness attributed to business would be how aggressively he chases those that owe him money.

f) Shakespeare was litigious.

The documentary evidence shows Shakespeare as being aggressive and being prepared to sue people for monies owed - even for comparatively small sums.

In 1600, there is a court record that shows William Shakespeare brought suit against John Clayton for a £7 debt (c $2,400 in today’s money) (In fairness there is some dispute amongst scholars over this debt as there is a document dating to 1592 relating to the same debt (although interestingly at the time this was detailed as a “loan” ).

In 1604 – there is the court record as reviewed above to show William Shakespeare sued the apothecary Philip Rogers for 35s..10d (c$700) plus 10 shillings damages (c$200), seeking to recover an unpaid balance on the sale of malt and a small loan (Shakespeare Birthplace Trust Records Office, MS. ER 27/5).

In 1608 Shakespeare instigated a law suit against John Addenbrooke for £6 (c$2,400), plus 24s.(c$500) damages. Shakespeare won and an order was granted for Addenbrooke's arrest. When Addenbrooke failed to show up in court an attempt was made to force Addenbrooke's guarantor to pay the full amount - a blacksmith named Thomas Horneby, (Shakespeare Birthplace Trust Records Office, Misc. Doc. V, 116; Misc Doc V, 139; Misc Doc V, 127a; Misc Doc V, 127b; Misc Doc V, 115; MS. ER 27/6; MS. ER 27/7).

In 1611 there was a Stratford Court of Chancery Bill of Complaint (Richard Lane et al. versus Doninus Carewe et al., Shakespeare Birthplace Trust Records Office, Misc. Doc. II, 11). Shakespeare was one of the "complainants”, who were asking other tenants pay their portion

Was Shakespeare A Fraud?

A Banker’s Perspective | © Tim Lea 2011

www.thepelicancode.com

of the rent of £26.13s.4d. (c $11,000) in regards a lease on some tithes (Document held Shakespeare Birthplace Trust Records Office, Misc. Doc. X, 9).

The interesting point of all the above court cases is that none of the court cases was in pursuit of debts for acting services or writing services - they were all business related – trading, rent or loans. We can also see that Shakespeare was particularly aggressive in the pursuit of monies that were owed to him. Especially when we consider the Addenbrooke transaction – where he pushed the transaction as far as he could to ensure he got his money – by pushing/squeezing even the guarantor of the debt – a tactic that would make any banker proud and reinforcing his expertise in lending money.

So by extending the logic of the aggressive pursuit of debt the next court appearance could perhaps have a more sinister interpretation.

g) Shakespeare – The Standover man?

As we have seen above Shakespeare, like his father, was almost certainly a money lender, and we have also seen he aggressively chased those that owe him money. My third point and perhaps the most contentious is that Shakespeare may have been particularly aggressive in chasing up some of his money lending debts.

Because money lending for excessive interest was illegal in Elizabethan times if he had been a money lender and if he had been charging usury interest rates in line with those of his father, he could not have used the legal system to pursue defaulting debtors. If he charged usury interest rates and was found guilty the penalties could be high and could result, at the very least, in him forfeiting his capital.

Now if we use the modern day example of lenders outside of the banking and regulatory system, loan sharks if you like, if they lend money, those that borrow do not have the sanctity of the law to protect them. Equally, loan sharks have their own ways of dealing with defaulters, which usually involves threats of or the actual use of violence. So if Shakespeare was lending monies at higher interest rates, he could not pursue the debtor through the courts – he would have to administer his own form of “credit control”.

In 1596 Shakespeare was in court with three others.

1) 29th November 1596 there is an entry on the King’s Bench controlment roll which

highlights the following Court record, where the plaintiff William Wayte

"swore before the Judge of Queen's Bench that he stood in danger of death, or bodily hurt," from "William Shakspere" and three others. "The magistrate then commanded the sheriff of the appropriate county to produce the accused ... who had to post bond to keep the peace, on pain of forfeiting the security" (Schoenbaum(William Shakespeare: A Documentary Life. New York: Oxford University, 1975) – the original entry was in Latin and available at The Public Record Office, Court of King's Bench, Controlment Roll, Michaelmas Term 1496, K.B. 29/234 )

The exact details behind the case are unknown but could the above behaviour be indicative of a stand-over man chasing debts? It makes you think.

So what is this Banker’s conclusion?

To summarise, William Shakespeare between 1597 – 1598 was in arrears in his taxes for around up 5 shillings ($100), had a net worth of £5 ($2,000) yet we are expected to believe he:

Was Shakespeare A Fraud?

A Banker’s Perspective | © Tim Lea 2011

www.thepelicancode.com

Bought the second largest house in Stratford worth around $1.75m in today’ s money

Funded his illegal trading activities (a barn full of malt and corn)

Had a casual £30 ($12,000) lying around to loan out

My conclusions on the basis of the documentary evidence available are:

Shakespeare was a regular commodities trader and was happy to deal in illegal goods – like his father.

Shakespeare was an aggressive businessman - pursuing those fully that owed him money

Shakespeare was a money lender like his father and on the balance of probability may well have been a stand-over man

Shakespeare hid substantial assets from the authorities so much so that if current Anti-money laundering laws were in place he could well, at best, have had his assets confiscated or at worst have been facing a long prison sentence.

Shakespeare was in default with his taxes, with even the underlying threat of the debtors prison not providing sufficient incentive to clear the default – with him consciously choosing to undertake illegal activities instead.

So in terms of his documented business activities (and these, once again, by virtue of the legacy of time, are likely just to be just the tip of his financial iceberg) I conclude that far from being a literary and creative genius William Shakespeare was a hard nosed business man who was a high risk taker, who ensconced himself in the black economy and aggressively chased his debts, possibly to the point of violence. It also suggests that business was his mainline activity bearing in mind the levels of trust that needed to be built up to support illegal trading and the “hidden wealth” that is seen to exist by virtue of his actual pool of assets as compared to those detailed to the authorities. Altogether it provides substantial credence to the to the concept that he was the business brains fronting the works of Shakespeare for someone else who was the creative and literary genius behind the scenes – whether that be Edward De Vere as postulated in the film Anonymous or indeed Christopher Marlowe the contentious Elizabethan writer who many believe was exiled to Northern Italy after his “official death” in 1593. The debate will rage on until definitive proof is found of an alternative writer/s as everything based around the different theories about Shakespeare not writing his own works are based on circumstantial evidence. Imaging how things would be different if we found actual proof. Tim Lea 11

th November 2011

www.thepelicancode.com Getting In Touch With The Author If you have any feedback or comments regarding this article or would like to publish all or part of the article within your site. blog or newsletter please do not hesitate to contact the author at pelicancode @ gmail.com (space deliberately included within email address to stop spammers and their infernal automated “robots”).