The Shakespeare Forgeries
In 1794, William Henry Ireland, a 17-year-old training in the legal field, introduced his father and the world to a newly discovered collection of documents from the desk of William Shakespeare, including legal documents, letters, and new sonnets. This discovery rocked academics and laypeople alike, and great scores of respected and knowledgeable scholars professed their complete belief that Shakespeare had written these papers; however, these documents were fakes. Ireland had developed a method to age paper and ink, and he forged documents straight “from Shakespeare’s pen” (Confessions, Ireland). In 1796, Ireland’s forgery came to light, ruining him and his father, one of the many academics who had rested their reputations on papers that were in reality created by a teenager without any writing credentials.
During the second half of the 17th century, when appreciation of classical literature grew, Shakespeare’s reputation had declined. But by the mid to late 18th century, people were ready to love him again. Ireland’s work provided another reason to talk about Shakespeare in the midst of a Shakespeare craze.
__________________________
Ireland, Samuel, William Henry Ireland. Miscellaneous papers and legal instruments under the hand and seal of William Shakespeare; including the tragedy of King Lear and a small fragment of Hamlet, from the original MSS. in the possession of Samuel Ireland, of Norfolk Street. London, 1796.
This collection, published by Samuel Ireland in 1796, includes facsimiles of his son's original forged documents. On these pages Shakespeare promises to give his friend money for work he had done at the Globe and gives a date by which he will pay. Attached to the letter is a response from the friend, showing that Shakespeare fulfilled his promise. Part of the appeal of Ireland’s forgeries was that it showed people the Shakespeare they wanted to see – a man punctual with his payments, trustworthy, Christian, devoted to his wife. Perhaps people wanted so strongly to believe that Shakespeare was all of these things they swallowed reasonable doubt in order to have that proof.
__________________________
Ireland, William Henry. The confessions of William Henry Ireland; containing the particulars of his fabrication of the Shakespeare manuscripts together with anecdotes and opinions (hitherto unpublished) of many distinguished persons in the literary political and theatrical world. London, 1805.
" Though death with never failing blow
Doth man and babe alike bring low
Yet doth he take naught but his due
And strikes not Willy’s heart still true"
Ireland first confessed to the forgeries in a pamphlet in 1796, and this significantly expanded version of the original pamphlet came out in 1805, with a detailed description of the process he undertook to create the documents, his inspiration, and transcriptions of most of his forgeries. The sonnet above (edited into more current spelling), meant to be a premarital love message to his future wife, Anne Hathaway, reflects syntax and language unlike that of Shakespeare. Not known to have gone by “Willy,” this sonnet has Shakespeare referring to himself so six times, and his profession of love is confusing and poorly crafted. Ireland did very little research to ensure that his work would approximate the talent and style of Shakespeare.
__________________________
Holinshed, Raphael. [The chronicles of England Scotland and Ireland]. [London], 1586.
To round out his collection of writings by Shakespeare, Ireland wanted to write a play. The first step was to find a source, and he chose Shakespeare’s go-to source for play ideas and storylines, Holinshed’s Chronicles. Just as Ireland appropriated Shakespeare, Shakespeare had appropriated history from these chronicles. Writing Shakespeare meant emulating Shakespeare’s process. Vortigern and Rowena was the only one of Irelands’ forged Shakespeare plays to be performed, albeit for one night only.
__________________________
Ireland, William Henry. Vortigern; an historical tragedy in five acts represented at the Theatre Royal Drury Lane. And Henry the Second an historical drama. London, 1799.
This play is not Shakespeare, nor does it particularly sound like him. One look at Ireland’s fool – a mainstay of Shakespeare generally known for wordplay and wisdom – shows an intrinsic inferiority of language. His wordplay is weak, and his presence is not particularly witty, nor does it shed much light on the current situation. The main way that Vortigern and Rowena imitates Shakespeare is by the adoption of common plot points. We expect Shakespeare plays to involve usurpation, jilted wives, and war that tears families apart, and thus Vortigern and Rowena feels familiar.
__________________________
Unknown Engraver. [Sarah Siddons as Lady Macbeth]. 1784.
Like Macbeth, Vortigern kills the king to take his place, usurping the throne from the king’s son and rightful heir.
__________________________
Unknown Engraver. [David Garrick as Richard III]. 1777.
Like Richard III, Vortigern, is both protagonist and villain, killing anyone who would jeopardize his throne.
__________________________
Unknown Engraver. Mr. Garrick as Hamlet. [n.d.].
Shakespeare loved corrupt kings, like Claudius in Hamlet. Any play with a corrupt king or political intrigue seems strongly related to Vortigern and Rowena. Shakespeare tends toward certain character types, even in wildly varying plots. Ireland’s plot choices may say as much about what we expect from a Shakespeare play as they do about Ireland’s literary interests.