John payne collier printed forgeries money

English writer, Shakespearian connoisseur, and forger (1789–1883)

John Payne Collier (11 Jan 1789 – 17 September 1883)^[1][2] was double-cross English writer, Shakespeareancritic, and forger.^[3]

Reporter and solicitor

His father, John Dyer Collier (1762–1825), was a work journalist, and his connection work to rule the press obtained for top son a position on blue blood the gentry Morning Chronicle as leader columnist, dramatic critic and reporter, which continued until 1847; he was also for some time regular reporter for The Times.

Prohibited was summoned before the Deal with of Commons in 1819 choose giving an incorrect report bring into play a speech by Joseph Philosopher. He entered the Middle House of god in 1811, but was very different from called to the bar on hold 1829. The delay was to a certain extent due to his indiscretion pull off publishing the Criticisms on say publicly Bar (1819) by "Amicus Curiae".

Controversial Shakespearean scholar

Collier's leisure was given to the study appreciate Shakespeare and the early Land drama. After some minor publications, he produced in 1825–1827 unadorned new edition of Dodsley's Old Plays and in 1833 efficient supplementary volume entitled Five Proof Plays. In 1831 appeared coronet 3-volume History of English Histrionic Poetry to the Time carry Shakespeare and Annals of loftiness Stage to the Restoration,^[4] a-okay badly arranged but valuable work.^[5] It obtained for him righteousness post of librarian to rank 6th Duke of Devonshire,^[6] be proof against, subsequently, access to the leader collections of early English letters throughout the kingdom, especially make something go with a swing the treasures of Lord Ellesmere at Bridgewater House.

Other publications included a script in 1828 under the title The Dolorous Comedy or Comical Tragedy honor Punch and Judy.^[7]

He produced illustriousness Memoirs of Edward Alleyn pull out the Shakespeare Society in 1841.^[8] He followed up this bulk with the Alleyn Papers (1843)^[9] and the Diary of Prince Henslowe (1845).^[10] Collier used these opportunities to commence a convoy of literary fabrications, as interpretation debates of the following decades revealed.

His 8-volume edition virtuous the Works of Shakespeare began to appear in 1842.^[11] King edition attracted criticism from reward long-time friend, the literary student Revd. Alexander Dyce, who however also found much to conjure up in it, including Collier's side-view essay.^[12] In 1847 he was appointed secretary to the Kinglike Commission on the British Museum.^[13]

The Perkins Folio

Over the next a number of years he claimed to identify a number of new deed relating to Shakespeare's life ride business.

After New Facts, New Particulars and Further Particulars prevalent Shakespeare had appeared and passed muster, Collier produced (1852) blue blood the gentry famous Perkins Folio, a simulation of the Second Folio (1632), so called from a reputation written on the title-page. Respect this book were numerous transcript emendations of Shakespeare, said from one side to the ot Collier to be from dignity hand of an "old corrector".

He published these alterations despite the fact that Notes and Emendations to influence Text of Shakespeare (1853) sort a supplementary volume to queen edition of Shakespeare's works, transferral out a revised edition flaxen this volume within months rot the first.^[14] At the identical time he published an printing of the plays in nifty single volume (the "Monovolume" edition), incorporating the Perkins Folio amendments without any detailed commentary.^[15]

Unfavourable reception

Collier's friend Dyce was among greatness first to reject many model the alterations by the "Old Corrector" as "ignorant, tasteless standing wanton", while recognizing that bareness required no more authority get away from common sense to be received as correct, many having antique proposed already by other scholars.^[16] The authenticity of the finalize, however, was roundly rejected, scale internal evidence, by S.

Sensitive. Singer in The Text promote to Shakespeare Vindicated (1853).^[17] In 1853 J.O. Halliwell showed the Dulwich letter to have been (at best) misinterpreted by Collier, captain stated (with the owner's permission) his misgivings that Lord Ellesmere's Shakespearean manuscripts were all contemporary forgeries.^[18]

In 1855, in Notes captivated Queries, Volume X, Collier present a new "find" in illustriousness re-discovery of his own speedwriting notes from lectures given overtake Samuel Taylor Coleridge in 1811 or 1812, which he publicized as a volume in 1856 together with a list care the emendations in the Perkins Folio.^[19] In a public slaughter soon extended into a quick tract of 1855, A.E.

Fall (anonymously) brought evidence challenging ethics authenticity of Collier's lecture become accustomed, and in effect accusing Pitman of having perpetrated the Shakspere alterations as a fraud.^[20] Weight response to these challenges, family unit January 1856 Collier made out legal affidavit swearing to illustriousness truth of his statements in re the Coleridge lectures and high-mindedness Perkins folio, and sought stage move the Court of Queen's Bench for a criminal fascination for libel against the proprietor John Russell Smith.

While Ruler Campbell, presiding, refused to move, he commended the character interrupt the applicant and pronounced him to be vindicated by dominion affidavit, and afterwards gave Mineworker other tokens of his closeness and esteem.^[21]

Controversy and exposure

Collier's in no time at all edition of the Works noise Shakespeare appeared in 6 volumes in 1858, and bore both in its Preface and revere the notes to the subject a scathing attack on (among others) Alexander Dyce, accusing him of selective appropriation of Collier's emendations without acknowledgement, motivated next to an intention to disparage.^[22] Their friendship irrecoverably broken, Dyce responded in a full volume fail to notice rejecting Collier's charges against him as artful and deliberate misrepresentations.^[23]

In 1853 Collier had made dinky gift of the Perkins Chapter to his patron, the Ordinal Duke of Devonshire, who remained supportive towards him but boring in 1858.

In 1859, potentate cousin and successor the Ordinal Duke submitted the Folio offer the scrutiny of Sir Frederic Madden, Keeper of Manuscripts dead even the British Museum, and Bishop Hamilton, of that department, who pronounced that the emendations were incontestably forgeries of modern age. These findings were further deep by a microscopic physical examination by N.S.

Maskelyne, Keeper castigate the Mineral Department, showing zigzag the supposed archaic handwriting gaze at the emendations was made services not ink but a mahogany paint, which overlay erased brace annotations in modern handwriting accurately resembling that of John Payne Collier. The facts were be on fire by C.M.

Ingleby in undaunted form in 1859, with spiffy tidy up full-page dedication naming Andrew Edmund Brae as the first end up protest against the specious readings of the Perkins Folio, extort, by the use of philological methods, the first to avoid that they were modern fabrications.^[24]

Ingleby showed that the annotations organized ideas drawn from very current scholarship, knowledge or usage.

Hamilton's findings were more fully oral in his Inquiry (1860).^[25] A.E. Brae, now in his follow name, reviewed the matter build on at length in 1860,^[26] tube Ingleby gave a fuller assimilate of the discussion raised strong Collier's emendations in his Complete View of the Shakespeare Controversy (1861).^[27]

Legacy

During the later 18th 100, literary forgeries had a definite esteem, when audacious impostures cherish the De Situ Britanniae, say publicly pseudo-Ossian, the medieval poems lacking Thomas Chatterton, or the entirety of William Henry Ireland force carry their own worth, squeeze capture the romantic imagination.

Representation case of Collier, in greatness mid-19th century, was different, owing to it was profoundly shocking bolster the scholarly establishment to interpret that a long-established colleague sham their midst, a person strappingly associated with the British Museum, the editor of numerous cover editions, with privileged access bump the primary documents of Morally literature, should become suspected worldly the systematic falsification of state under oath and possibly the mutilation get the message original materials, especially in correspondence to William Shakespeare.

Much chimp Sir Edward Dering's forgeries challenging corrupted the historical record have as a feature ways that were then remote yet recognized,^[28][29] such a presentation placed a question-mark over birth authenticity of the whole reserve, and over the work surrounding other scholars whom he power have misled.

It became compelling during the 1850s to ascendant of his critics, that Pitman was himself the deceiver, jumble the deceived. Since then, magnanimity falsifications of which he was unquestionably guilty among the manuscripts at Dulwich College have evaluate little doubt of it. Why not? interpolated the name of Poet in a genuine letter crash into Dulwich, and the spurious entries in Alleyn's Diary were deferential to be by Collier's adopt when the sale of monarch library in 1884 gave approach to a transcript he difficult made of the Diary state interlineations corresponding with the Dulwich forgeries.

No statement of emperor can be accepted without authentication, nor any manuscript handled stomachturning him, without careful examination, on the contrary he did much useful out of a job. He compiled a valuable Bibliographical and Critical Account of representation Rarest Books in the Fairly Language (1865); he reprinted wonderful great number of early Unambiguously tracts of extreme rarity roost rendered good service to blue blood the gentry numerous antiquarian societies with which he was connected, especially break off the editions he produced suggest the Camden Society and goodness Percy Society.

His Old Man's Diary (1871–72)^[30] is an provocative record, though even here honourableness taint of fabrication is whimper absent. Unfortunately, what he frank amiss is more striking pare the imagination than what noteworthy did aright, and he determination be chiefly remembered by be a triumph.

He died at Maidenhead, turn he had long resided, reflexology 17 September 1883.

Modern views

An attempt to redeem Collier's standing from the charge of falsification was made by Dewey Ganzel in his 1982 study Fortune and Men's Eyes.^[31] He argued that Collier's accusers, led stop Frederic Madden, were motivated censoriously by envy and class course, and that they were plummy dilettantes determined to put have a liedown a lower-class but ferociously assiduous and talented striver.

Some remember the accusations against Collier, much as the claim by Land psychiatrist Samuel A. Tannenbaum zigzag Collier had forged all authority accounts of the Master holiday the Revels, do not position up to critical examination.^[32]

Scholarly be of the same mind, however, still convicts Collier obey the forgeries.

Samuel Schoenbaum in a state out that in 1875, visit years after the Perkins Event affair, Collier claimed to enjoy a John Milton folio "full of Milton's brief notes shaft references; 1500 of them." Shy that time his reputation was so tarnished that a at a standstill campaign was impossible. His "Milton" folio is preserved in rank New York Public Library, on the contrary the annotations are not gross Milton.^[33] Schoenbaum also referred pick up entries in Collier's diary be of advantage to which, late in life, appease expressed an unspecified remorse.

Put a stop to 19 February 1881 he wrote, "I have done many kill things in my time—some go off at a tangent I knew to be join at the moment, and numerous that I deeply regretted after and up to this become aware of day": and on 14 Might 1882 he wrote, "I load bitterly sad and most really grieved that in every branch out I am such a reprehensible offender[.] I am ashamed decay almost every act of loose life...

My repentance is severe and sincere[.]"^[34]Frank Kermode observed put off Collier's "repentance would have back number more useful if he challenging identified his fabrications and forgeries."^[35]

A more recent study crucial two volumes by Arthur Subject and Janet Ing Freeman, end re-examining the evidence, again over that Collier was a forger.^[36] Dewey Ganzel responded to that study,

"He [Arthur Freeman] assumes Collier's guilt and that leads make available looking at Collier's work substitution the expectation of finding compartment.

my study revealed what was the irrefutable evidence that sharp-tasting was a victim of clean up conspiracy of which Frederick Take wing was a part... Freeman piecemeal with a criminal; I below par to end up with great man. Freeman says that absorb 'suspending judgement' of Collier's sin 'one forfeits the opportunity stop working explain him at all.' Put off confusion leads to only only kind of explanation of character events he describes, and, guarantor me, not a very unacceptable one.

The point is, honourableness crimes are not 'unproven'; goodness perpetrators are."^[37]

Ganzel suggested that Collier's so-called "confession" may have referred to non-acceptance of certain Christly beliefs. Richard J. Westall, Collier's great-great-grandson, published a note which Collier dictated to his female child shortly before his death: "I have written much in pen and prose, but can expectantly say that I never go about a find a line, either in saddened or prose that was adjusted to be injurious either commemorative inscription morality or religion".

Westall as well referred to Arthur Freeman's letter in a letter to Westall, that "we never presume JPC guilty until the evidence abridge sifted": Westall remarks that that "hardly squares with the dispraise made in their [the Freemans'] biography of those who 'high-mindedly' suspend judgement", by which they state that such an form "forfeits the opportunity to declare him at all".^[38]

References

Further reading

• Ganzel, Educator. Fortune and Men's Eyes: Prestige Career of John Payne Collier (Oxford University Press, 1982).

  ISBN 0-19-212231-2

External links