The Shakespeare Forgeries
The Forging of Shakespeare Legends
Literary forgers, as we have said, are creators of false documents, requiring talents of a special kind. This is not the case of those who forge legends. All they require is boldness, and the ability to spin a good tale.
There have been a number of legends created about Shakespeare, many of which have survived to this day as true accounts concerning his life. Their survival succeeds because they are legends, and that they cannot be verified by documentary evidence. Hence, they are difficult to refute. Some of them are given more credence than they deserve by the skillful correlation of the legend with some obscure reference in one of the plays or sonnets. They are created by those who desire to be noticed, and propagated by those who wish to believe them. If they are forgeries and not legends, then their creator must know they are false.
William Davenant, the Illegitimate Son of William Shakespeare:
This is an interesting oral forgery, because it is as much hinted at as overtly stated. William Davenant, born in 1603 in
There are no records to substantiate any part of either of Davenants assertions. No baptismal certificate exists indicating the name of Davenants godparents. No records exist that Shakespeare ever stayed over in
Few authorities over the centuries have given any credence to Davenants claims. His tale has become a humorous footnote to literary history.
But the Great Jubilee brought an unanticipated result. The slowly growing local interest in Shakespeare exploded. There had been some interest in Shakespeare before 1769, but such interest came primarily from visitors to the town. Some furor resulted when the owner of
The Mulberry tree, however, acquired new life during the Jubilee. An incredible number of wooden objects were carved from the wood of the tree and were sold to those in attendance. The small boxes, cups, and other items were so numerous that it is difficult to believe that a single Mulberry tree, even one 150 years old, could yield so much usable lumber. As we saw, Samuel Ireland bought a Mulberry cup and treated it as a holy relic.
From the time of the Jubilee on, for some 30 years, John Jordan assumed the role of local Shakespeare historian, tour guide, and purveyor of Mulberry wood objects, carved over a 40-year period by a local by the name of Sharpe.
It appears that
For years John Jordans anecdotes and local history found their way into biographies of Shakespeare, and, to this day, they appear in books and articles whose authors should know better.
It is difficult to forgive the self-aggrandizing Davenant, but it is somewhat easier to forgive John Jordan.
Despite the fact that forgery, if not done for financial gain at someone elses expense, is not a crime, and that plagiarism (the cousin of literary forgery) is also not a crime, unless it violates copyright, there is nonetheless something repugnant about the whole enterprise.
But, repugnant as it may be, the need for personal glory as a motivating force for the forgers is understandable. Not acceptable, but understandable. The fever of renown is stronger than the restraint not to deceive.
Still, it would be quite wonderful to have those pages of Hamlet in the Bards own hand, wouldnt it?