• Volume the First
• Volume the Second
• Volume the Third

It was very well received, "superseding Malone."  In it he reports his find of the Manningham Diary, which contains a reference to a performance of Twelfth Night in 1602 and also the story of Shakespeare besting Burbage in amorous conquest, William the Conqueror preceding Richard III (see vol. I, p. 332 of The History).

These genuine discoveries and the quality and usefulness of The History would have made his reputation, but he amplified his discoveries by, for the first time, adding inventions of his own:  ""...he incorporates a long ballad--otherwise unknown--supossedly 'copied from a contemporary MS.' on the Cockpit riot of 1617..." (Schoenbaum, 247; for the forged ballad, see p. 402 of vol. 1 of The History).  He also adds an invented 1596 petition to the Privy Council wherein the Lord Chamberlain's men ask permission to continue their renovation of the Blackfriar's Theatre.  Shakespeare's name appears fifth among the principal actors (see vol. I, p. 297-98 of The History).  A remarkable, though sadly also non-existent, discovery.

Shortly after the publication Collier was made literary adviser to the Duke of Devonshire and asked to look after his dramatic library (Devonshire loved old plays).  In return for this light work, he received a 100 pound per annum pension.  Through the consequent aristocratic connections he met Lord Francis Egerton, soon the Earl of Ellsmere.  "Egerton generously gave Collier 'instant and unrestrained access' to the Ellesmere papers at Bridgewater House, 'with permission to make use of any literary or historical information' he found therein.  Here were reposited the papers of Lord Ellesmere, Elizabeth's Keeper of the Great Seal and James's Lord Chancellor" (Schoenbaum, 248). 

Shortly thereafter he published New Facts Regarding the Life of Shakespeare. In a Letter to Thomas Amyot, Esq., F.R.S., Treasurer of the Society of Antiquaries, from J. Payne Collier, F.S.A based upon documents "...he happened upon one day just after being left alone in the room by Lord Egerton" (Schoenbaum 248-49).    In it he demonstrates Shakespeare as a shareholder in the Blackfriar's theatre by 1589 (thus propping up the earlier forgery printed in The History relative to the non-existent 1596 petition to the Privy Council (see p. 10-11 in New Facts)).  [The King's Men did not, in fact, begin to play at the Blackfriar's until 1609.]  Collier is also, remarkably, able to "give a precise evaluation of Shakespeare's holdings in 1608" (see p. 22-25 in New Facts), where Collier also gives Shakespeare's share in the company as equal to Richard Burbage's, and estimates his yearly income as 300 pounds.  All complete fabrications.

The jewel, as it were, of New Facts is, however, even more breathtaking.  It is a previously unknown letter signed H. S.--obviously Henry Southampton (dedicatee of Shakespeare's Venus and Adonis and The Rape of Lucrece)--wherein H. S. encourages Ellesmere to protect the actors at the Blackfriars where they were under attack in 1608 from the Corporation of London.  The letter--handed to Lord Ellesmere by Burbage or Shakespeare who waited on him suit in hand--commends the two actors and says "The other hath to name William Shakespeare, and they are both of one countie, and indeed almost of one towne: both are right famous in their qualityes" (the letter is published beginning on p. 32 of New Facts).  There you have it, Burbage and Shakespeare near neighbors.  How, when one thinks about it, could it have been otherwise.

As if this were not enough, Collier also in the New Facts "...produces the draft of a patent of privy seal which does 'appoint and authorize the said Robert Daiborne, William Shakespeare, Nathaniel Field and Deward Kirkham from time to time to provide and bring upp a convenient nomber of Children, and them to instruct and exercise in the qualtihy of playing Tragedies Comedies &c. by the name of the Children of the revells to the Queene, within the Black fryers in our Citie of London or els where within our realme of Englan'" (Schoenbaum, 250 - p. 41 in New Facts).  Finally, Collier forges a letter, purportedly from Samuel Daniel, who writes to thank the Lord Keeper "for being appointed in 1603 to supervise the productions of the Queen's Revels children."  In his letter, Daniel refers to an unnamed, disappointed candidate, clearly Shakespeare (p. 47 in New Facts).  So many revelations in such a little book.  Astonishing.

Tomorrow we will take up the further forgeries of J. Payne Collier, The Memoirs of Edward Alleyn, his monumental edition of Shakespeare's Works, The Perkins Folio, his soaring reputation, and an evaluation of his work.  The day after (most likely) we will deal with his exposure, including a look at one of the first uses of scientific forensics in literary detection.

Collier Continues

Collier's  New Facts Regarding the Life of Shakespeare was the apogee, as it were, of his biographical "discoveries" concerning Shakespeare.  He then turned to editing the works of Shakespeaer and by happy coincidence, his ongoing discoveries seemed to center on the texts.  In New Particulars Regarding the Works of Shakespeare. In a Letter to the Rev. A. Dyce ... from J. Payne Collier, F.S.A. (1836) he discovered 'indisputable' evidence of a production of Othello in August 1602--in all likelihood antidating the composition of the work.  In 1839 in Farther Particulars Regarding Shakespeare and His Works, In a Letter to the Rev. Joseph Hunter, F.S.A. from J. Payne Collier, F.S.A. (the text is not available from Google Book Search, but the WorldCat feature can be used to find it in a library) he discovered a ballad titled "The Inchanted Island," which resembles The Tempest.

A new chapter began for Collier in 1840 when he, with Alexander Dyce, J. O. Halliwell (later Halliwell-Phillips, who suffered his own document theft scandal), and others founded the Shakespeare Society.  He used its respectable cover to gain access to the Henslowe and Allen papers at College of God's Gift in Dulwich. (The actor Edward Alleyn, Henslowe's son-in-law, founded and literally built the college: "The business of entertainment was so lucrative, that in 1605, Alleyn was able to purchase the Manor of Dulwich for £35,000 from the financially troubled Sir Francis Calton. Alleyn began building The College of God's Gift on the estate in 1613, at cost of £10,000. Dulwich College, as it is now known, was formally constituted in 1619." (See The Luminarium Encyclopedia Project article on Alleyn)).  In 1841 he published Memoirs of Edward Alleyn; Including Some New Particulars Respecting Shakespeare, Ben Jonson, Massinger, Marston, Dekker, & C.  It contains a fabricated list of the names of the King's Men, including Shakespeare, "...it proves that up to 9th April, 1604, our greatdramatist continued to be numbered among the actors of the company (Memoirs, p. 68).  He also produces a document that proves that Shakespeare resided in Southwark in 1609 and "...we are warranted in concluding that he lived at that time in as good a house s any of his neighbours : Henslowe, Alleyn, Shakespeare, Collins, and Burrett, are the only persons rated as high as 6d" (Memoirs, p. 91).  It was such a little thing, inserting the name Shakespeare in a long list of neighbors...  Collier also asserted in the Memoirs, based on a document that can no longer be found at Dulwich College, that Shakespeare paid 599 pounds for Blackfriars property in 1612.

In the prefatory  The Life of Shakespeare in vol. I of The Works of William Shakspeare Collier presents the new material gathered about Shakespeare's life in the preceding years (gathered, mainly by him, though he modestly demurs mention of the fact) he treats the new "facts" "...as though they already formed part of the documentary record and were for all the world as substantial as the monumental bust in Stratford Church" (Schoenbaum, p. 252).

Schoenbaum, in his analysis, points out that Collier "...consistently did good as well as mischief" (255).  He notes, with justice, the facual discoveries which have been authenticated and first discovered by Collier, facts concerning Shakespeare's ancestry, an inventory of corn and malt belonging to Shakespeare in 1598, certain legal complaints filed by Shakespeare concerning tenants' failure to pay rent, and other documents related to Shakespeare's economic status and relationships in Stratford.  Collier also was the first to establish the link between Shakespeare and Henry Willobie's Willobie His Avisa--but that is another story.

Doubts and Loyalties Among Shakespeareans

In 1841 J. W. Croker wrote to Charles Knight, expressing doubts about the Southampton letter that Collier claimed to have found among the Ellesmere papers--the one where Shakespeare and Burbage were said to be "one countie, and indeed almost of one towne" (p. 32 of Collier's New Facts - see my earlier post, "A Forger Forges Forth").  Croker wrote, "If that letter be genuine I must plead guilty to a great want of critical sagacity, for somehow it smacks to me of modern invention...Mr. Collier is, of course, above all suspicion of having any hand in the fabrication" (Schoenbaum, p. 256).  Of course.

Knight "agonizes publicly over the document" in his 1843 William Shakespeare, a biography, but "His faith in Collier's bona fides overcomes the scruples offered by his reason" (Schoenbaum, p. 257).  (The history of Knight's biography is instructive.  In the first revised edition of the 1843 biography, William Shakespeare, a biography, 1851, Knight gently corrects his earlier reliance on the Collier documents without condemning Collier.  For example, with regards to the bogus Southampton document in the Ellesmere papers indicating Shakespeare and Burbage were of "one countie" Knight says: "This [document] would be decisive had some doubts not been thrown upon the assumption that William Shakespeare and Richard Burbage were originally neighbors" (p. 171).  Knight cannot abandon his old friend, however, and elsewhere treats the document as perhaps authoritative.  At this point, doubts had arisen about the authenticity of some of Collier's "discoveries," but Brae, Hamilton and Ingleby had not yet published their evidence.  However, Knight does not change his treatment of Collier's "facts" in the 1865 edition of his biography, much to his discredit, or credit, depending on whether you value loyalty or honesty best.)

A more thoroughgoing antiquarian, Joseph Hunter, also commented on the Ellesmere document in the 1845  New Illustrations of the Life, Studies, and Writings of Shakespeare (vol. 2 is available from GB, vol. 1 from Amazon).  Regarding the Southampton letter, he says "is not in the style of the times at all."  Regarding Collier's document that places Shakespeare as a sharer in the Blackfriars in 1589 Hunter says it is "not like the phrase in which a genuine certificate of that time would be conceived, but very like what fifty years ago would be thought to be a good imitation of that phrase" (quoted from Schoenbaum, p. 258).  Hunter adds, "No one who knows Mr. Collier, can for a moment doubt that they were found by him there [ie, that the documents were found at Bridgewater House]."

Soon thereafter, the Earl of Ellesmere began to permit scholars (other than Collier) to inspect the documents kept at Bridgewater House.  This was the beginning of the end for Collier.  Hunter and W. H. Black inspected them and Hunter's doubts about their authenticity was confirmed, but he elected not to say so publicly.  Halliwell (another founder of the Shakespeare Society) was also permitted to view the documents, and he published his findings in Observations on the Sheakesperian Forgeries at Bridgewater House.  (Unfortunately the work is not yet available from GBS or IA, but it is referenced in Leslie Stephens' 1890 Dictionary of National Biography as part of Halliewll's entry: "For a time he was deceived by J. P. Collier's forgeries respecting Shakespeare, but in 1853 he convinced himself of the truth, and in his ' Observations on the Shakespearean Forgeries at Bridgewater House ' pointed out as considerately as possible the need of a careful scrutiny of all the documents which Collier had printed. From the first he expressed his suspicion of the Perkins folio, but assumed that Collier was himself the innocent victim of deception, and always chivalrously defended Collier's memory from the worst aspersions cast upon it" (p. 120).  After commenting on the various forged documents being in a common paper and ink, and in the same hand, Halliwell writes: "It is clearly Mr. Collier's duty as a lover of truth, to have the originals carefully scrutinised by the best judges of the day" (quoted in Schoenbaum, p. 259).  Lover of truth, indeed.

Though the Shakespeare Society was in shambles, and soon dissolved, Halliwell's document went unnoticed (it was printed "for private consumption").  Collier, as far as the world knew, was still the most eminent Shakespeare scholar of his day.  As egregious as the Bridgewater forgeries were, it was the Perkins Folio that did him in.

CSI, the British Museum

We come now to that intricate but clumsy piece of forgery that led to the downfall of J. Payne Collier: the Perkins Folio.  (Not that any of his somewhat crude efforts could have eluded detection for long had it not been for his genuine and deserved reputation as a scholar).

In 1852 Collier announced in the Athenaeum (no less) that he had acquired from his late friend Thomas Rodd a copy of the Second Folio of 1632 containing the inscription "Tho. Perkins, his booke."  What was newsworthy about this was that Collier had discovered that the volume contained "numerous marginal and textual annotations--literally thousands and thousands--in an old hand" (Schoenbaum, p. 259).  Collier wondered, were the source of these annotations perhaps 'purer manuscripts,' or stage recitations?  In 1853 he published Notes and Emendations to the Text of Shakespeare's Plays, from Early Manuscript Corrections in a Copy of the Folio 1632, in the Authors Possession.

  "The singularity and interest of the volume arise out of the
fact, that, from the first page to the last, it contains notes
and emendations in a hand-writing not much later than the
time when it came from the press. Unfortunately it is not
perfect..." (Notes and Emendations, p. iii)  No, not perfect, lest someone suspect it be too good to be true.  "As there is no page without from ten to thirty of these minor emendations,
they do not, in the whole, fall short of 20,000 : most of them have, of course, been introduced in modern editions, since the plain meaning of a passage often contradicts the old careless and absurd pointing ; but it will be seen hereafter, that in not a few instances the sense of the poet has thus been elucidated in a way that has not been anticipated" (Notes and Emendations, p. iv).  Such a modest and indifferent evaluation of such a significant find.  True, the find is shabby: "It is, nevertheless, in a very shabby condition, quite consistent with the state of the interior, where, besides id': loss of some leaves, as already mentioned, and the loosening of other», many stains of wine, beer, and other liquids are observable : here and there, holes have been burned in the paper, either by the falling of the lighted snuff of a candle, or by the ashes of tobacco. In several places it is torn and disfigured by blots and dirt, and every margin bears evidence to frequent and careless perusal..." (Notes and Emendations, p. vi).  But what better testament of authenticity?

Where could the volume had come from, and who might have made the many annotations?  "It then struck me that Thomas Perkins, whose name, with the addition of " his Booke," was upon the cover, might be the old actor who had performed in Marlowe's "Jew of Malta," on its revival shortly before 1633. At this time I fancied that the binding was of about that date, and that the volume might have been his ; but in the first place, I found that his name was Richard Perkins, and in the next I became satisfied that the rough calf was not the original binding. Still, Thomas Perkins might have been a descendant of Richard ; and this circumstance and others induced me to examine the volume more particularly: I then discovered, to my surprise, that there was hardly a page which did not present, in a handwriting of the time, some emendations in the pointing or in the text, while on most of them they were frequent, and on many numerous" (p. viii).  I quote at length so the reader might get the flavor of Collier's cautious, matter-of-chance ruminations and slowly dawning excitement of genuine discovery.  It is a fascinating performance.

A careful forensic analysis must have been conducted?  Of course, but by Collier and none other:  "Of course I now submitted the folio to a most careful scrutiny ; and as it occupied a considerable time to complete the inspection, how much more must it have consumed to make the alterations ? The ink was of various shades, differing sometimes on the same page, and I was once disposed to think that two distinct hands had been employed upon them : this notion I have since abandoned ; and I am now decidedly of opinion that the same writing prevails from beginning to end, but that the amendments must have been introduced from time to time, during, perhaps, the course of several years. The changes in punctuation alone, always made with nicety and patience, must have required a long period, considering their number ; the other alterations, sometimes most minute, extending even to turned letters and typographical trifles of that kind, from their very nature could not have been introduced with rapidity, while many of the errata must have severely tasked the industry of the old corrector'" (p. viii).

Note only were textual corrections and annotations added, but remarkable "...there are at least two other very peculiar features in the volume. Many passages, in nearly all the plays, are struck out with a pen, as if for the purpose of shortening the performance7; and we need not feel much hesitation in coming to the conclusion, that these omissions had reference to the representation of the plays by some company about the date of the folio, 1632. To this fact we may add, that hundreds of stage-directions have been inserted in manuscript, as if for the guidance and instruction of actors, in order that no mistake might be made in what is usually denominated stage-business" (p. ix).  How remarkable, and with what ease, now that this discovery has been made, so many knotty contextual problems might now be solved with ease!: "Are we not entitled, then, to consider this copy of the folio, 1632, an addition to our scanty means of restoring and amending the text of Shakespeare, as important as it is unexpected? If it had contained no more than the comparatively few points to which we have adverted in this Introduction, would it not have rendered an almost inappreciable service to our literature, and to Shakespeare as the great example of every species of dramatic excellence Î It strikes me as an impossible supposition, that such as these were purely conjectural and arbitrary changes ; and it follows as a question, upon which I shall not now enlarge, how far such indisputable emendations and apposite additions warrant us in imputing to a higher authority, than we might otherwise be inclined to acknowledge, some of the more doubtful alterations recorded in the ensuing pages " (p. xxiv).  Indeed!

The first to respond in print was S. W. Weller in The Text of Shakespeare Vindicated from the Interpolations and Corruptions Advocated by John Payne Collier, Esq., in His Notes and Emendations (1853).  He does not accuse Collier of wrongdoing, however, but instead, as with those suspicious of the earlier Bridgewater House forgeries, gives Collier a pass based on his long established bona fides: "I should have thought that Mr. Collier, in the same manner, meant to mystify the Shakespearian Scaligers of this age by the publication of his volume of " NOTES and EMENDATIONS ;" but as he had formerly evinced such praiseworthy respect for the remains of our great poet, and had been such a staunch defender of the integrity of the old text, I could not bring myself to believe that he would indulge in a hoax which might lead to mischievous results. I am constrained, therefore, to imagine it possible that he has himself been made the victim of such a delusion by some 'Puck of a commentator,'..." (p. v).

The first to accuse Collier publicly was A. E. Brae in  Literary Cookery with Reference to Matter Attributed to Coleridge and Shakespeare. A Letter Addressed to "The Athenaeum"; with a Postscript Containing Some Remarks Upon the Refusal of That Journal to Print It (1855).  Collier sued, stating in an affidavit that he had not "...inserted a single word, stop, sign, note, correction, alteration, or emendation of the said original text of Shakespeare..." (quoted in Schoenbaum, p. 260).  Collier had diversified his portfolio of crime to include purjury.

In a development that one would expect in a Victorian novel, Collier received a letter indicating that a Mr. Perry had owned a copy of the 1632 Folio with marginal annotations.  When shown a copy of the Perkins frontispiece as published by Collier, he recognized it as having belonged to his very own copy.  Collier rushed to him and "obtained a pedigree of sorts" (Schoenbaum, 261) which he promptly published in the Atheneum.  As it turns out, Collier had never actually shown the Perkins volume to Parry.  As time went on and Collier was pressed, he claims he did show the volume to Parry who identified it, but Parry denied Collier's claim.

The only recourse, once general suspicions had been aroused, was to subject the volume to careful, objective analysis.  Collier eluded this check by placing his volume in the private library of his former benefactor (whose librarian and literary adviser he had once been) the Duke of Devonshire.  The old Duke died, however, and his son permitted the volume to be analyzed.  Sir Frederic Madden, Keeper of Manuscripts at the British Library and expert on early orthography ( Observations on an Autograph of Shakespeare, and the orthography of his Name) examined the Perkins volume.  The corrections "...could not be in a genuine hand of the seventeenth century...he examined the Folio leaf by leaf, and discovered to his astonishment thousands of pencil corrections, partly erased, in the margins; pencil too underlay some of the ink notations" (Schoenbaum, 262).  Madden's conclusion, written in a private journal, was that "Mr. C. is himself the fabricator of the notes!"

Madden consulted his assistant, N. E. S. A. Hamilton, to assist with the investigation.  They both asked a Prof. Maskelyne, Keeper of the British Museum's Mineral Department, to test the pencil and ink annotations.  He "undertook a series of microscopic and chemical tests" (Schoenbaum, 262) and found that the pencil notations underlay the ink and that the ink was a modern, water-color, "rather than any ink ancient or modern."  He further found that the "Old Corrector" had attempted to erase the pencil notations before applying the water-color ones.  Madden concluded (privately) that Collier "deserves to be chased from all literary Society" (Schoenbaum, p. 262).

Events, from this point, rapidly undercut Collier publicly.  Hamilton discovered his forgeries at Dulwich College.  C. M. Ingleby, also on the hunt, assisted Madden and Lord Ellesmere in discovering pencil markings beneath the ink in the Bridgewater Folio first described by Collier in 1841.  In 1860 Hamilton published An Inquiry into the Genuineness of the Manuscript Corrections in Mr. J. Payne Collier's Annotated Shakspere, Folio, 1632; And of Certain Shaksperian Documents Likewise Published by Mr. Collier. By N. E. S. A. Hamilton, which demonstrated the inauthenticity of both the Perkins Folio and the Bridgewater House documents.  Collier fought lamely back, but to no effect.

In 1859 C. M. Ingleby had published  he Shakspeare Fabrications, or the Ms. Notes of the Perkins Folio Shown to Be of Recent Origin. With an Appendix on the Authorship of the Ireland Forgeries and then in 1861 A Complete View of the Shakspere Controversy, Concerning the Authenticity and Genuineness of Manuscript Matter Affecting the Works and Biography of Shakspere.  "It is not so much a work of original investigation as an indictment drawn up by a highly intelligent prosecuting attorney..." (Schoenbaum, p. 263).  Ingleby unearths all of Collier's forgeries, going back decades, and reproduces examples in facsimile.  With the fine deference among Victorian gentlemen Ingleby sought out Madden, who deserved the credit for the initial discovery of the forgeries, in order to give him credit, but Madden declined, averse to the publicity.

As a serious scholar, Collier was done.  All his forgeries had been laid bare in terms that could not be answered.  He remained silent.  Many of his former friends dropped him, but he lived on to the age of 94.  Though never publicly admitting guilt, in his Diary, and at the end of his life, he wrote, "I am bitterly sad and most sincerely grieved that in every way I am such a despicable offender I am ashamed of almost every act of my life" (quoted in Schoenbaum, p. 266).  So ends the tale of the greatest (so far) Shakespearean forger.