|
| |
Fakes and Forgeries: Four Letters "by" Lord Byron
From: The British Library
| By:
Christopher Fletcher |
EDITOR'S INTRODUCTION |
How does an expert in literary manuscripts tell if a document is a fake or a forgery? Christopher Fletcher, curator of modern literary manuscripts at The British Library, discusses this question by looking at four letters purporting to be from the poet Lord Byron. Only one of the quartet is genuine. |
 he forging of written documents has a long--if hardly illustrious--history. In the nineteenth century, when collecting manuscripts of famous authors became increasingly popular, the temptation to create homemade literary relics proved irresistibly strong for some bibliophiles. A naive desire to boast possession of an "original autograph" motivated some forgers, while the more unscrupulous hoped to exploit a market greedy for written treasures. Then, as now, the dubious satisfaction derived from duping other people, especially experts, undoubtedly played a significant part in all such acts of deception. |
Facsimiles are copies of authentic documents, usually produced by a variety of skillful printing techniques such as lithography. They are intended to instruct and interest rather than to deceive, and therefore cannot be called forgeries. Nonetheless, in the wrong hands they are still capable of creating considerable mischief as "fakes." |
Forgeries and facsimiles can be detected by a variety of methods. Close attention to provenance, handwriting, ink, paper, postal marks, content and context can help a practiced eye to determine authenticity, especially if the questioned document can be compared to a genuine example. |
Letter A
"Major Byron" claimed to be Lord Byron's natural son. This letter belongs to a large group of Byron and Shelley forgeries manufactured by him and presented to The British Library (then the British Museum Library) in 1853 by a bookseller fooled into buying them. |
Although they are often of great subtlety and skill, the forgeries usually betray their fraudulent origin in a number of ways. In this instance, the forger, working many years after Byron's death, in 1824, has been careful to select paper watermarked 1815. Ironically enough, the consequences of this subtle choice raise immediate questions about the document. Over time, paper loses its sizing (or prepared surface), causing much more recently applied ink to "bleed," as is plainly evident here. |
Other suspicious factors include the odd-coloured ink, a slip with the date (most unlikely at the end of the year) and a prose style weakly imitative of known Byron letters. A study of the writing puts the forgery beyond doubt. Although Byron's characteristic hand is reasonably well matched in particular details, as in the word "Venice," for example, the forger's overall effort is crabbed and lacking in fluency. If any further confirmation of the fraud were needed, it is provided on the reverse of the letter, which features an incorrect seal and spurious postmarkings. |
Letter B
Alexander Howland "Antique" Smith was sent to prison for a year in 1893 for forging a considerable number of letters, or, as he euphemistically termed them, "facsimiles." In addition to Burns, Scott and other famous figures, Smith specialized in forgeries of Byron. |
Illustrated here is a letter purporting to be from the poet, enclosing a verse from Canto 3 of his poem "Child Harold's Pilgrimage." Although the words are certainly Byron's, there are clear indications that this particular copy, like the accompanying letter, is forged. The lines are written on a piece of poor-quality modern paper, apparently torn from a notebook. The hand, although superficially successful in conveying Byron's urgent style, has the contrived, "drawn" appearance typical of an imitation; closer inspection reveals tremor and hesitation inconsistent with fluent, natural penmanship. The brown colour of the pigment represents a fairly hopeless attempt to emulate the aging of genuine iron gall ink, while the presence of two model signatures on a private addendum sent to a close friend would be very unlikely in a real document. |
The forgery also includes good examples of one of Smith's most famous errors--the failure to correct his own natural tendency to dot his "I"s too far to the right! The reverse of the letter shows incorrect folds for a pre-envelope document, an oversight emphasized by the clumsy attempt to age the paper with "grime." The postmarks are peculiar in colour and form, as are the written endorsements. |
Letter C
This letter is not a forgery. It is an example of a mechanically produced facsimile of a genuine Byron letter which was produced in large numbers and included in several editions of the poet's works. The facsimile frequently becomes detached from the bound volume, giving the appearance of a genuine letter and misleading whoever "discovers" it. |
Despite its excellent quality (and considerable age), the document has certain characteristics which clearly distinguish it from a manuscript. The rather flat appearance suggests a printed rather than a written document, as does the uniformly dark colour of the ink. Neither of these were recognized by the auction house which once mistook the letter for its genuine counterpart. |
Letter D
This letter was sent by Byron to his friend John Cam Hobhouse on 12 December 1818, just a few days after the date given on Major Byron's forgery. It is written with characteristic fluency and verve on paper of a type frequently used by the poet. The iron-gall ink has aged in a manner consistent with a manuscript of this date, its gradual corrosive action clearly visible through the page. In contrast to the Major Byron forgery, the lines of ink are sharp and have not bled, an indication that the writing and paper are contemporaneous. |
The content of the letter is entirely convincing, as are the hasty deletions and corrections--a natural feature of Byron's letters, suspiciously absent in the forgeries. The seal, postmark and various endorsements on the reverse of the letter are exactly as would be expected and the provenance is indisputable. |
|
| |
