Skip to main content
The Collation

Shakespeare's personal library, as curated by William Henry Ireland

It’s every bibliophile’s dream. You’re in a bookshop, or maybe at a local auction, browsing idly along the shelves. It’s late in the afternoon and you’re just preparing to leave, when you spot a bundle of old pamphlets loosely piled in a cardboard box. At the very bottom of the bundle you pull out a slim volume bound in old calf. Brushing the dust off the binding, you open it… and your heart skips a beat. There on the title-page, in a sixteenth-century hand, is the signature “William Shakespeare.”

Example of Ireland-Shakespeare ownership mark

William Shakespeare’s signature on the title page of British Library Stowe MS 1004, with the inscription “S. Ireland from his dear son” at top of page.

Folger STC 12995 c.2

The inscription on the title page of Folger STC 12995 Copy 2. This book apparently belonged to the author John Hayward before it came into William Shakespeare’s hands.

Fake or fortune? The inscriptions on the title-pages, “S. Ireland from his dear son,” give the game away. The “dear son” is none other than nineteen-year-old William Henry Ireland, most prolific and audacious of eighteenth-century forgers. Ireland started forging Shakespeare documents in 1794 to please his father Samuel, whose greatest desire in life was to obtain a relic of Shakespeare for his collection. He claimed to have discovered them in an old chest belonging to a mysterious “Mr H.” whom he hinted might be a descendant of the actor John Heminges, joint editor of the First Folio. 

  1. We are very grateful to Carl Berkhout for supplying this information about the content of the catalogue.
  2. “I also wrote manuscript notes on books to about the number of fifty, all of which I gave to my father,” (Authentic Account).
  3. “In order to augment the bulk of the Shaksperian papers, I had recourse to the introducing of volumes and tracts (to about the number of eighty), containing notes written in the disguised hand, while on the title-page of each appeared the signature of William Shakspeare; by which I meant to infer that the books in question had originally been in the possession of our bard” (Confessions, p. 194).
  4. We appreciate the assistance of Arthur Freeman and Jack Lynch in citing copies in other institutions.
  5. Most of the rest of the Original Forgeries (in contrast to the post-discovery copies of forgeries that Ireland made) has recently been rediscovered at Harvard. See Arthur Freeman’s expanded TLS article on this subject.

Comments

Did Ireland’s father find out about the forgery before he died?

James — June 18, 2013

Reply

Yes, Samuel found out about the forgeries, but refused to believe that his son was capable of creating them, even after William Henry published a detailed account of his deception in 1796! He died in 1800, still claiming to believe that the manuscripts and library were authentic.

Heather Wolfe — June 19, 2013

Reply

Fascinating! I can’t help but surmise that the Ireland and Collier forgeries live on, in the false certainty that we know “beyond any reasonable doubt” that “Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare.”

Take away Ireland’s and Collier’s “discoveries,” consider the possibility that contemporary references to “Shakespeare” were references to the pseudonym, read Marcy North’s provocative book The Anonymous Renaissance, and you end up with some reasonable doubt!

Richard M. Waugaman, M.D. — June 19, 2013

Reply

We don’t believe there is any doubt that “Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare,” but at any rate, Ireland’s forgeries illustrate a wider point: the tendency of many critics and commentators over the centuries to read into Shakespeare what they want to find in him. And the personal stories of the forgers are so compelling–which is why Ireland especially has been the subject of so many biographies.

Heather Wolfe — June 20, 2013

Reply

This is a fantastic post. Thank you! Why do you think the younger Ireland did not attempt to create a commonplace book ascribed to Shakespeare? Too ambitious?

I read somewhere, perhaps in Schoenbaum, that Malone believed such a commonplace existed and that was part of the reason he delayed his much-anticipated biography for so long. (I say that and now cannot find the reference, but I’m convinced I read that speculation).

Thank you both, again, for the wonderful idea and information here!

Amos Magliocco — June 20, 2013

Reply

Actually, on 10 May 1795 young Ireland did produce for his father “Shakspeares Common place book of Mss—Ireland, home & arms 1600,” although it is currently untraced. Said father Samuel, “He brought me a small book in a parchment Cover, fasten’d with leather strings—& ye same by way of binding—filled with remarks of daily occurrences—a View of Irelands house, his Arms, &c &.—This book he was seen to be washing in ye kitchen as if to clear the Cover from dirt & afterwards dried it by ye fire.” (BL MS. Add. 30346, f. 85r)

The Ireland house herein is presumably that of the earlier William-Henry who pulled a drowning Shakespeare out of the Thames.

Carl Berkhout — June 20, 2013

Reply

The commonplace book is thought to be the one now at Rosenbach Library and Museum, in Philadelphia (Rosenbach EL3 .I65 MS3). Arthur Freeman mentions it in his TLS essay (see the link in footnote 5).

Heather Wolfe — June 21, 2013

Reply

Enjoyed your article, and loved the images. Best, j.

jeffrey kahan — June 21, 2013

Reply

I can’t thank the three of you enough. This is valuable information for my work. I’m currently writing a novelization of the American researchers Charles and Hulda Wallace during their time in Britain, and part of what the novel speculates is that the Wallaces might have been as fascinated by and obsessed with the idea of a commonplace book still to be found as was Malone (supposedly). I’m now planning a trip to Philadelphia to examine what young Ireland imagined such a document would look like. Again, I’m grateful.

Amos Magliocco — June 22, 2013

Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *