Vortigern,: An historical tragedy in five acts represented at the Theatre Royal, Drury Lane and Henry the Second,

by William Henry Ireland

This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important, and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work was reproduced from the original artifact, and remains as true to the original work as possible. Therefore, you will see the original copyright references, library stamps (as most of these works have been housed in our most important libraries around the world), and other notations in the work.

This work is in the public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work.

As a reproduction of a historical artifact, this work may contain missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant.

43 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1799

About the author

William Henry Ireland was an English forger, poet, gothic novelist, and historian.

He started forging Shakespeare's signature in 1794 and sold the forged play Vortigern and Rowena in 1795.

Reviews

[Scott · Rating 1 out of 5]

It's hard to believe anybody actually fell for this forgery. Of all the apocryphal plays at some time attributed to Shakespeare, this is easily the worst. The writing is flat. There's little or no character development. There are dozens of scenes, all almost exactly the same length. It's as Shakespearean as the Twilight series, only much less entertaining.

It was kind of fun to read to complete my reading of the apocrypha, and to see if it lived up to its reputation of being worthy of derision. But Shakespeare it is not.

[Coco Picard · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a pretty great backstory: the play was written by a young kid who forged the play, then "discovered" it and claimed it belonged to Shakespeare. A big controversy erupted and it wasn't until they re-enacted the play that the forgery was proven for what it was.

[Alaric the King · Rating 1 out of 5]

Ireland claimed it was Shakespeare's, which already makes the work controversial. Is it any good? I don't think so, and neither did the audience at the time- Indeed, they laughed at it while it was being played for the first time.