The Ireland Shakespeare forgeries were a cause célèbre in 1790s London, when author and engraver Samuel Ireland announced the discovery, by his son William Henry Ireland, of a treasure-trove of Shakespeare's manuscripts. Among them were the manuscripts of four plays, two of them previously unknown.
Upon the release of the manuscripts, such respected literary figures as James Boswell (biographer of Samuel Johnson) and poet laureate Henry James Pye pronounced them genuine, as did various antiquarian experts. Richard Brinsley Sheridan, the leading theatre manager of his day, agreed to present one of the newly discovered plays with John Philip Kemble in the starring role. Excitement over the biographical and literary significance of the find turned to acrimony, however, when it was charged that the documents were forgeries. Edmond Malone, widely regarded as the greatest Shakespeare scholar of his time, conclusively showed that the language, orthography, and handwriting were not those of the times and persons to which they were credited. William Henry Ireland, the supposed discoverer, then confessed to the fraud.
Background
Although Shakespeare's works were readily available in versions both for the learned and for the general public, no satisfactory biography could be constructed. In spite of an intense search by would-be Shakespeare biographers from Nicholas Rowe to Edmond Malone, only scraps and legends turned up. There was an intense hope and expectation that some documents would surface to fill the gap.
Samuel Ireland was an eager collector of antique relics—his collection included a piece of Charles II's cloak, Oliver Cromwell's leather jacket, and Joseph Addison's fruit knifeBernard Grebanier, The Great Shakespeare Hoax, pp. 42–43.—as well as a Shakespeare enthusiast. While gathering material for a forthcoming book, Picturesque Tours of the Upper, or Warwickshire Avon, he passed through Stratford on Avon. By this time, Stratford had already begun capitalising on its status as Shakespeare's birthplace, prompting Ireland to make inquiries about the life of the dramatist. Although he had the satisfaction of being the first to introduce Shakespeare's crabtree and Anne Hathaway's cottage to the general public, Ireland found that official documentation of the bard eluded him.Schoenbaum, Shakespeare's Lives, pp. 191–192.
Samuel's son, William Henry Ireland, had a fascination with forgery. He was heavily influenced by the novel Love and Madness by Herbert Croft, which contained lengthy passages on the forger Thomas Chatterton. William witnessed his father's frustration first-hand. One moment, in particular, struck him forcibly. Knowing that the furniture and papers from New Place, Shakespeare's last residence, had been moved to Clopton house when New Place was demolished, Samuel Ireland reasoned that Shakespearean manuscripts might well be found there.Samuel Ireland, Picturesque Views on the Upper, or Warwickshire, Avon (London 1796), p. 204; William Henry says that old residents told them papers had been moved there at the time of the Stratford fire. Upon visiting however, he was informed by the current tenant that all the old papers—many of them Shakespeare's—had recently been burned. Samuel Ireland's distress at this news made a strong impression on the young man—even though it later turned out that this story was nothing more than a joke at Ireland's expense.William Henry Ireland related this story in the Authentic Account (pp. 5–6), the Confessions (pp. 30–33), and the unpublished Full and Explanatory Account (according to Schoenbaum, p. 192). Edmond Malone investigated the incident, writing to the owner about the propriety of a tenant destroying his landlord's papers; the tenant denied the incident and admitted it was a practical joke. Mair, pp. 19–20, and Schoenbaum, p. 193, have brief accounts of the subsequent investigation of the incident. According to the younger Ireland's confessions, it was to please his father that he embarked on the career of literary forgery that would ultimately ruin them both.Confessions, p. 302.
First documents From a chance acquaintance met at a book-binder's the young man learned of a technique for simulating the appearance of ancient writing by using a special ink and then heating the paper.William Henry Ireland, Authentic Account, p. 4. After a trial run creating a couple of relatively insignificant documents, he set out to devise something with Shakespeare's signature. His work at a legal firm gave him access to Elizabethan and Jacobean parchment deeds, so in December 1794 he cut a piece of parchment from one of them, used his special ink to write with and heated it over a candle. The result was a mortgage deed between Shakespeare and his fellow-actor John Heminges on one side, and Michael Fraser and his wife on the other. The text and signature he copied from the facsimile of the genuine 1612 mortgage deed printed in Malone's edition of Shakespeare.Schoenbaum, p. 197; in his published accounts William Henry Ireland claims to have used the Johnson-Steevens edition, but the Blackfriars mortgage deed he used as a basis for the forgery did not appear there, and was first printed in Malone's edition. In his unpublished accounts he admitted to using Malone's edition. Ripping a seal from another early deed, young Ireland attached it to this concoction and presented the result to his father on 16 December. Samuel Ireland accepted it as authentic, and the next day took it to the Heralds' Office, which approved it as genuine.Mair, pp. 27–29.
Asked where he had turned up this deed, William Henry replied that he had found it in an old trunk belonging to a chance acquaintance who did not wish to have his name revealed. Mr. H., as he called him, had freely given him this deed. The young discoverer suggested that there might well be more documents where this had come from,Jeffrey Kahan, p. 57, based on Samuel Ireland's unpublished records; William Henry later revised this in his Confessions (p. 55) to claim that he never would have continued had not others suggested to him to possibility of finding more documents. and quickly followed this up with a promissory note from Shakespeare to Heminges—the only such note (had it been genuine) ever discovered from the period.Bernard Grebanier; The Great Shakespeare Forgery, pp. 81–82.
Further forgeries With his next discovery William Henry moved from mere forgery to original art.Mair, The Fourth Forger, p. 31. Having learned—apparently from a chance remark by one of his father's friends rather than by research—that Henry Wriothesley, 3rd Earl of Southampton had been Shakespeare's patron, he decided to create correspondence between them.William Henry Ireland, Confessions, p. 78. "Doe notte esteeme me a sluggarde nor tardye for thus havyinge delayed to answerre or rather toe thank you for youre greate Bountye," he has Shakespeare write sans punctuation. "[G]ratitude is alle I have toe utter and that is tooe greate ande tooe sublyme a feeling for poore mortalls toe expresse O my Lord itte is a Budde which Bllossommes Bllooms butte never dyes." The Earl of Southampton replies in a similar vein, also sans punctuation, and with a similar spelling: “…as I have beene thye Freynde soe will I continue aughte thatte I canne doe forre thee praye commande me ande you shalle fynde mee Yours Southampton".Text from Samuel Ireland, Miscellaneous Papers and Legal Instruments under the Hand and Seal of William Shakspeare, 1796. To explain how both letters could end up together in the same collection William Henry added a note explaining that Shakespeare's was a "Copye" of the letter he sent. Samuel Ireland and his friends admired the style of the letters but not the earl's penmanship; William Henry, not knowing that handwriting of the earl was extant, had written Southampton's reply with his left hand.Confessions, pp. 78–83.
A flood of documents now followed, all coming from Mr. H's ostensibly miraculous chest. Shakespeare's "Profession of Faith" proved he was a Protestant, a letter to fellow-actor Richard Cowley showed he was "a perfect good natured man",William Henry Ireland, Authentic Account, p. 15. and a letter from Queen Elizabeth made it clear that he was favoured by the most powerful person in the land. A sketch of himself that accompanied his letter to Cowley showed that he was a wretched draftsman with an impenetrable sense of humour. Described in the letter as a "whysycalle conceyte", it was (as Malone put it) "most truly whimsical, being a miserable drawing of our poet done by himself with a pen, from Martin Droeshout's print of him engraved seven years after his death…."Edmond Malone, An Inquiry into the Authenticity of Certain Papers and Instruments Attributed to Shakespeare, p. 209. There were also theatrical receipts, contracts, a letter and poem to his future wife, "Anna Hatherrewaye", and even books from Shakespeare's library, complete with marginal annotations actually signed by the bard himself. Of most interest, however, were a manuscript of King Lear Shakespeare had prepared for the press, a few stray leaves of "Hamblette", and two previously unknown plays, Vortigern and Rowena and Henry II.
Artifacts on display From the moment of discovery Samuel Ireland invited friends in to see his new possessions. On 20 December 1794 Sir Frederick Eden, 2nd Baronet came to examine the seal on the Fraser lease. He announced that it represented a quintain, a device used in lance practice, and the conclusion was that Shakespeare had used it as a play on his own name.Samuel Schoenbaum, Shakespeare's Lives, p. 199. In February 1795 however he issued a general invitation to literary men to come to his house and examine them. The exhibition was a roaring success. Samuel Parr and Joseph Warton on hearing Samuel Ireland read the "Profession of Faith" proclaimed it superior to anything in the English liturgy. James Boswell got down on his knees to kiss the relics. Scottish antiquarian George Chalmers and educator Richard Valpy visited frequently, and editor James Boaden, author Herbert Croft, and poet-laureate Henry James Pye (among others) testified publicly to their belief in the authenticity of the papers.DNB, p. 33.
Shortly after this, Ireland turned his home exhibit into a museum, inviting members of the public to look at his artifacts in exchange for a fee. It was at this time a visitor noted that a document supposedly written by the Earl of Leicester was dated 1590, despite the nobleman having died in 1588.Kahan, Reforging Shakespeare, pp. 85–86; Samuel Schoenbaum, Shakespeare's Lives, p. 206. When Samuel Ireland confronted his son with this information, William Henry wanted to burn the document, but his father demurred. He suggested that the document might have been misdated at some later time, and the two agreed to tear off the date.William Henry Ireland, A Full and Explanatory Account, MS, cited in Schoenbaum, op. cit. The item was displayed, and subsequently printed, in this mutilated form. At least two scholars, antiquary Joseph RitsonRitson to Paton, 21 July 1795 in The Letters of Joseph Ritson, volume 2, pp. 91–93. and classicist Richard Porson,Bernard Grebanier, The Great Shakespeare Forgery, p. 137. correctly recognised the documents as forgeries, and editor Henry Bate Dudley started lampooning the papers as early as 17 February 1795.Grebanier, p. 127, Schoenbaum, p. 212; Mair, p. 59.