Henry the Sixth Part 3

I recently came upon a story which I think bears telling. It is about forgery, greed, and a son's need for his father's approval.

William Henry Ireland was born in London in 1777. His father Samuel was passionate about Shakespeare and often told William how badly he wanted an original sample of the Bard's handwriting. William decided that if he couldn't find such an artifact for his father, he'd have to create one. His first effort was a forged letter of presentation to Queen Elizabeth from an obscure author. William purchased a book the Queen may have owned and had a printer mix him a bottle of ink that appeared to come from the early seventeenth century. He presented the book and letter to his father, who declared them genuine. William then conducted one further experiment, forging a legend on a bust of Oliver Cromwell that was then authenticated by experts. Finally on December 16, 1794 he presented Samuel with a deed supposedly signed by Shakespeare. He used period parchment and terminology, his bottle of ink and Jacobean seals stolen from other documents. Samuel accepted the deed and demanded that William procure more of Shakespeare's papers.

Over the next six weeks, William produced many more fake documents. Samuel accepted all of them, largely due to his willingness to believe and his conviction that William was not smart enough to fool him. Many of these documents were also authenticated by experts, in spite of serious spelling and punctuation problems and some highly unlikely dates and associations. William lived in constant danger of discovery and his desire for his father's approval led him to claim he had found several pieces that he could not possibly produce. It was after he forged a highly improbable "Confession of Faith" that things began to go wrong. First his employer caught him producing a forged document, but agreed to stay silent. His father rejected a badly drawn portrait of the Bard, so William produced a letter stating that it was in fact a self-portrait. He went on to create more drawings, including one of Shylock dressed as a Dutchman, which, strangely, no one questioned. As more men authenticated his work, the forger began to think that he was Shakespeare's equal.

The fake documents were put on display and crowds of people came to see them, all accepting that they were real. Today it seems unbelievable that so many were fooled, but there were far fewer resources and means of reproduction then, so very few people would have had samples of Shakespeare's work with which to compare the forgeries. William wrote an entire play, "Vortigern", claimed that it was a previously unperformed work of Shakespeare's and began looking for a way to have it produced. Then he created a will that left all of the Bard's papers to one of William's ancestors. As "Vortigern" went into production, holes began to appear in the forger's story. The play's backers lost enthusiasm because of the work's poor quality, the actors were unhappy, and there were accusations of forgery. Samuel published his collection of Shakespearean documents and the signature of John Heminge was identified as fake. William produced "proof" that Shakespeare knew two John Heminges and this explanation was accepted, but suspicion remained. When "Vortigern" was advertised, it was not actually credited to the Bard. On April 2, 1796, the play was performed in front of a full theatre. It was clearly not legitimate; the writing was inferior, with poor characterization and modern words, and the play moved too quickly for a Shakespearean drama. In spite of these problems, the first two acts of play were well received. Disaster struck in Act 4, when a "dead" actor was still moving, and audience members got up on stage while the rest howled with laughter. When the second performance was announced there were shouts of protest, fights broke out, and the actors were pelted with oranges. "Vortigern" was never performed again.

Go To Page: 1 2 3