



Produced by Irma Spehar, Jennifer Linklater and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This
file was produced from images generously made available
by The Internet Archive/Canadian Libraries)









  THE
  ORNITHOLOGY
  OF
  SHAKESPEARE.

[Illustration: WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE

From the Chandos Portrait]




  THE
  ORNITHOLOGY
  OF
  SHAKESPEARE.

  CRITICALLY EXAMINED, EXPLAINED, AND ILLUSTRATED.

  BY
  JAMES EDMUND HARTING, F.L.S., F.Z.S.,

  MEMBER OF THE BRITISH ORNITHOLOGISTS' UNION,
  AUTHOR OF "THE BIRDS OF MIDDLESEX,"
  ETC., ETC.

  [Illustration: Publisher's Logo]

  LONDON:
  JOHN VAN VOORST, PATERNOSTER ROW.
  MDCCCLXXI.




  LONDON:

  PRINTED BY WOODFALL AND KINDER,
  MILFORD LANE, STRAND, W.C.




PREFACE.


Of no other author, perhaps, has more been written than of Shakespeare.
Yet whatever other knowledge his commentators professed, few of them
appear to have been naturalists, and none, so far as I am aware, have
examined his knowledge of Ornithology.

An inquiry upon this subject, undertaken in the first instance for my
own amusement, has resulted in the bringing together of so much that is
curious and entertaining, that to the long list of books already
published about Shakespeare, I have been bold enough to add yet another.
In so doing, I venture to hope that the reader may so far appreciate the
result of my labour as not to consider it superfluous.

As regards the treatment of the subject, a word or two of explanation
seems necessary. In 1866, from the notes I had then collected, I
contributed a series of articles on the birds of Shakespeare to _The
Zoologist_. In these articles, I referred only to such birds as have a
claim to be considered British, and omitted all notice of domesticated
species. I had not then considered any special arrangement or grouping,
but noticed each species _seriatim_ in the order adopted by Mr. Yarrell
in his excellent "History of British Birds." Since that date, I have
collected so much additional information on the subject, that, instead
of eighty pages (the extent of my first publication), three hundred have
now passed through the printers' hands. With this large accession of
material, it was found absolutely necessary to re-arrange and re-write
the whole. The birds therefore have been now divided into certain
natural groups, including the foreign and domesticated species, to each
of which groups a chapter has been devoted; and I have thought it
desirable to give, by way of introduction, a sketch of Shakespeare's
general knowledge of natural history and acquaintance with field-sports,
as bearing more or less directly on his special knowledge of
Ornithology, which I propose chiefly to consider.

After I had published the last of the series of articles referred to, I
received an intimation for the first time, that, twenty years
previously, a notice of the birds of Shakespeare had appeared in the
pages of _The Zoologist_. I lost no time in procuring the particular
number which contained the article, and found that, in December, 1846,
Mr. T. W. Barlow, of Holmes Chapel, Cheshire, had, to a certain extent,
directed attention to Shakespeare's knowledge as an Ornithologist. His
communication, however, did not exceed half a dozen pages, in which
space he has mentioned barely one-fourth of the species to which
Shakespeare has referred. From the cursory nature of his remarks,
moreover, I failed to discover a reference to any point which I had not
already investigated. It would be unnecessary for me, therefore, to
allude to this article, except for the purpose of acknowledging that Mr.
Barlow was the first to enter upon what, as regards Shakespeare, may be
termed this new field of research.

The labour of collecting and arranging Shakespeare's numerous allusions
to birds, has been much greater than many would suppose, for not only
have I derived little or no benefit from the various editions of his
works which I have consulted, but reference to a glossarial index, or
concordance, has, in nine cases out of ten, resulted in disappointment.
It is due to Mr. Staunton, however, to state that I have found some of
the foot-notes to his library edition of the Plays very useful.

Although oft-times difficult, it has been my endeavour, as far as
practicable, to connect one with another the various passages quoted or
referred to, so as to render the whole as readable and as entertaining
as possible. With this view, many allusions have been passed over as
being too trivial to deserve separate notice, but a reference to them
will be found in the Appendix at the end of the volume,[1] where all the
words quoted are arranged, for convenience, in the order in which they
occur in the plays and poems.

In spelling Shakespeare's name, I have adopted the orthography of his
friends Ben Jonson and the editors of the first folio.[2]

As regards the illustrations, it seems desirable also to say a few
words.

In selecting for my frontispiece a portrait of Shakespeare as a falconer
(a character which I am confident could not have been foreign to him), I
have experienced considerable difficulty in making choice of a likeness.

Those who have made special inquiries into the authenticity of the
various portraits of Shakespeare, are not agreed in the results at which
they have arrived. This is to be attributed to the fact that, with the
exception of the Droeshout etching, to which I shall presently state my
objection, no likeness really exists of which a reliable history can be
given without one or more missing links in the chain of evidence.

There are four portraits which have all more or less claim to be
considered authentic. These are "the Jansen portrait," 1610; "the
Stratford bust," prior to 1623; "the Droeshout etching," 1623; and "the
Chandos portrait," of which the precise date is uncertain, but which
must have been painted some years prior to 1616, the year of
Shakespeare's death.

It would be impossible, within the compass of this preface, to review
all that has been said for and against these four portraits. Neither
will space permit me to give the history of each in detail. I can only
briefly allude to the chief facts in connection with each, and state the
reasons which have influenced me in selecting the Chandos portrait.

Mr. Boaden, who was the first to examine into the authenticity of
reputed Shakespeare portraits,[3] has evinced a preference for the
so-called "Jansen portrait," in the collection of the Duke of Somerset,
considering it to have been painted by Cornelius Jansen, in 1610, for
Lord Southampton, the great patron, at that date, of art and the drama.

The picture, indeed, bears upon the face of it an inscription--

    AE^te    46
        1610

--which gives much weight to the views expressed by Mr. Boaden.

It is certain that, in the year mentioned, Jansen was in England, and
that he painted several pictures for Lord Southampton; it is equally
true, that at that date Shakespeare was in his forty-sixth year. But Mr.
Boaden fails to prove that this particular picture was painted by
Jansen, and that it was ever in the possession of Lord Southampton, or
painted by his order.

As a fine head, and a work of art, it is the one of all others that I
should like to think resembled Shakespeare, could its history be more
satisfactorily detailed.

Many regard as a genuine portrait, the Bust at Stratford-on-Avon, which
is stated to have been executed by Gerard Johnson, and "probably" under
the superintendence of Dr. John Hall. The precise date of its erection
is not known, but we gather that it was previous to 1623, from the fact
that Leonard Digges has referred to it in his Lines to the Memory of
Shakespeare, prefixed to the first folio edition of the Plays published
in that year. Mr. Wivell relies very strongly on the circumstance of its
having been originally  to nature.[4] Hence tradition informs us
that the eyes were hazel, the hair and beard auburn. It must be
admitted, however, that a portrait after death can never be so faithful
as a picture from the life, while no sculptor who examines this bust can
maintain that it was executed from a cast.[5]

Those who approve of the Droeshout etching, published in 1623, as a
frontispiece to the first folio, find a strong argument in favour of its
being a likeness in the commendatory lines by Ben Jonson, which
accompany it. Jonson knew Shakespeare well, and he says of this
picture:--

    "This figure that thou here seest put,
    It was for gentle Shakespeare cut;
    Wherein the graver had a strife
    With Nature to outdoo the life.
    O, could he but have drawne his wit
    As well in brasse as he hath hit
    His face, the print would then surpasse
    All that was ever writ in brasse;
    But since he cannot, reader, looke
    Not on his picture, but his booke."

As a work of art it is by no means skilful, and is confessedly inferior
not only to other engravings of that day, but also to other portraits by
Martin Droeshout.

That it bore some likeness to Shakespeare _as an actor_, I do not doubt,
but that it resembled him as a private individual when off the stage, I
cannot bring myself to believe. The straight hair and shaven chin which
are not found in other portraits having good claims to be considered
authentic, and the unnaturally high forehead, which would be caused by
the actor's wearing the wig of an old man partially bald, suggest at
once that when the original portrait was taken, from which Droeshout
engraved, Shakespeare was dressed as if about to sustain a part in which
he was thought to excel as an actor.

Boaden has conjectured that this portrait represents Shakespeare in the
character of old Knowell, in Ben Jonson's _Every Man in his Humour_, a
part which he is known to have played in 1598, and this would easily
account for Ben Jonson's commendation.[6] This conjecture is so
extremely probable, that I have no hesitation in endorsing it.

We come, then, now to "the Chandos portrait." With the longest pedigree
of any, it possesses at least as much collateral evidence of
probability, and is, moreover, important as belonging to the nation.[7]
It has been traced back to the possession of Shakespeare's godson,
William, afterwards Sir William, Davenant, and all that seems to be
wanting materially, is the artist's name. The general opinion is, that
it was painted either by Burbage or Taylor, both of whom were
fellow-players of Shakespeare. It is styled the Chandos portrait from
having come to the trustees of the National Portrait Gallery from the
collection of the Duke of Chandos and Buckingham, through the Earl of
Ellesmere, by whom it was purchased and presented. The history of the
picture, so far as it can be ascertained, is as follows:--

It was originally the property of Taylor, the player (our poet's
Hamlet), by whom, or by Richard Burbage, it was painted.[8]

Taylor dying about the year 1653, at the advanced age of seventy,[9]
left this picture by will to Davenant.[10] At the death of Davenant, who
died intestate in 1663, it was bought, probably at a sale of his
effects, by Betterton, the actor.

While in Betterton's possession, it was engraved by Van der Gucht, for
Rowe's edition of Shakespeare, in 1709. Betterton dying without a will
and in needy circumstances, his pictures were sold. Some were bought by
Bullfinch, the printseller, who sold them again to a Mr. Sykes. The
portrait of Shakespeare was purchased by Mrs. Barry, the actress, who
afterwards sold it for forty guineas to Mr. Robert Keck, of the Inner
Temple.

While in his possession, an engraving was made from it, in 1719, by
Vertue, and it then passed to Mr. Nicholls, of Southgate, Middlesex, who
acquired it on marrying the heiress of the Keck family.

The Marquis of Caernarvon, afterwards Duke of Chandos, marrying the
daughter of Mr. Nicholls, it then became his Grace's property. When his
pictures were sold at Stowe, in September, 1848, this portrait was
purchased for three hundred and fifty-five guineas by the Earl of
Ellesmere, who, in March, 1856, presented it to the Trustees of the
National Portrait Gallery, in whose hands it still remains.

Notwithstanding this pedigree, the picture has been objected to on the
ground that the dark hair and foreign complexion could never have
belonged to our essentially English Shakespeare. Those who make this
objection, seem to forget entirely the age of the portrait, and the fact
that it is painted in oil and on canvas, a circumstance which of itself
is quite sufficient, after the lapse of two centuries and a half, to
account for the dark tone which now pervades it, to say nothing of the
numerous touches and retouches to which it has been subjected at the
hands of its various owners.

Notwithstanding the missing links of evidence, it seems to me that,
having traced the picture back to the possession of Shakespeare's
godson, we have gone far enough to justify us in accepting it as an
authentic portrait in preference to many others. For we cannot suppose
that Sir William Davenant would retain in his possession until his death
a picture of one with whom he was personally acquainted, unless he
considered that it was sufficiently faithful as a likeness to remind him
of the original.

On the score of pedigree, then, and because I believe that the only
well-authenticated portrait (_i.e._, the Droeshout) represents
Shakespeare as an actor, and not as a private individual, I have
selected the Chandos portrait for my frontispiece.

By obtaining a reduced photograph of this _upon wood_, from the best
engraving, and "vignetting" it, I have been enabled to place upon the
left hand a hooded falcon, drawn by the unrivalled pencil of Mr. Wolf,
and thus to entrust to the engraver, Mr. Pearson, a faithful likeness of
man and bird.

As regards the other illustrations, my acknowledgments are due to Mr. J.
G. Keulemans for the artistic manner in which he has executed my
