CHAPTER I._The Ornithology of Shakespeare Critically examined, explained and illustrated

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

SHAKESPEARE.

[Illustration: WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE

From the Chandos Portrait]

THE

ORNITHOLOGY

SHAKESPEARE.

CRITICALLY EXAMINED, EXPLAINED, AND ILLUSTRATED.

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--

Æ^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 coloured 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

designs, and to Mr. Pearson for the careful way in which he has engraved

them.

With these observations, I conclude an undertaking which has occupied my

leisure hours for six years, but which indeed has been, in every sense

of the word, “a labour of love.”

Should the reader, on closing this volume, consider its design but

imperfectly executed, it is hoped that he will still have gleaned from

it enough curious information to compensate him for the

disappointment.

CONTENTS.

INTRODUCTION. PAGE

SHAKESPEARE’S GENERAL KNOWLEDGE OF NATURAL HISTORY.

His Love of Sport.--Hawking.--Fishing.--Hunting.--Fowling.--

Deer-Shooting.--Deer-Stealing.--“The Subtle Fox” and “Timorous

Hare.”--Coursing.--Coney-Catching.--Wild Animals mentioned by

Shakespeare.--His Knowledge of their Habits.--Insects referred to

in the Plays.--Shakespeare’s Powers of Observation.--Practical

Knowledge of Falconry.--Love of Birds. 1

CHAPTER I.

THE EAGLE AND LARGER BIRDS OF PREY.

An “Eagle Eye.”--Power of Flight.--A good Omen.--“The Bird of

Jove.”--The Roman Eagle.--The “Ensign” of the Eagle.--Habits and

Attitudes.--Eagles’ Eggs.--Longevity of the Eagle: its Age

computed.--The Eagle trained for Hawking.--The Vulture: its

Repulsive Habits.--The Osprey: its Power over Fish.--The Kite.--

The Kite’s Nest.--The Buzzard. 23

CHAPTER II.

HAWKS AND HAWKING.

Explanation of Hawking Terms.--The Falcon and Tiercel.--The

Qualities of a good Falconer.--The “Lure” and its Use.--The

“Quarry”--The Hawk’s “Trappings.”--Jesses, Bells, and Hood.--An

Unmann’d Hawk.--The Cadge--The Hawks Mew.--The Royal Mews.--Origin

of the word “Mews.”--Imping.--How to “Seel” a Hawk.--A Hawk for

the Bush.--Going “a-birding.”--The “Stanniel” or Kestrel.--Origin

of the Two Names.--The “Musket” or Sparrow-Hawk.--Hawk and

Hernshaw.--Prices of Hawks.--Hawk’s Furniture.--Hawk’s

Meat.--Falconer’s Wages.--Sundries. 49

CHAPTER III.

THE OWL AND ITS ASSOCIATIONS.

“The Bird of Juno.”--“The Favourite of Minerva.”--“The Bird of

Wisdom.”--Sacred to Proserpine.--Use in Medicine.--The Bird of

Ill-Omen.--Its Appearance by Day.--Its Habits misunderstood.--Its

Utility to the Farmer.--A Curious Tradition.--Its Note or Cry.--An

Owl Robbing Nests.--Evidence not conclusive.--Its Retiring

Habits.--Its “Five Wits.”--Its Fame in Song.--The Owl’s Good Night. 83

CHAPTER IV.

THE CROWS AND THEIR RELATIONS.

The Raven: a Bird of Ill Omen.--Its Supposed Prophetic Power.--Its

Deep and Solemn Voice.--The Raven’s Croak foreboding Death.--The

“Night-Raven” and “Night-Crow.”--The Raven’s Presence on

Battlefields.--Its alleged Desertion of its Young.--The Rook and

Crow.--The Crow-Keeper, and “Scare-Crow.”--The Chough.--Russet-pated

Choughs.--The Daw, Magpie, and Jay. 99

CHAPTER V.

THE BIRDS OF SONG.

The Nightingale.--“Lamenting Philomel.”--Singing against a

Thorn.--Erroneously supposed to Sing only by Night.--

“Recording.”--The Lark.--“The Herald of the Morn.”--Singing at

Heaven’s Gate.--Song of the Lark.--Soaring and Singing.--Changing

Eyes with Toad.--Lark-Catching.--The Common Bunting.--“The Throstle,

with his Note so True.”--Imitation of his Song.--The Ouzel-Cock.

--The Robin-Redbreast, or Ruddock.--Covering the Dead with Leaves.

--“Redbreast Teacher.”--“The Wren with Little Quill.”--Its Loud

Song.--The Sparrow.--“Philip Sparrow.”--Providence in the Fall of

a Sparrow.--The Hedge-Sparrow and Cuckoo.--“The Cuckoo’s Bird.”

--“Ungentle Gull.”--“The Plain Song Cuckoo Gray.”--The Song of

the Cuckoo.--Cuckoo Songs.--The Wagtail, or Dishwasher.--

Bird-catching.--Springes.--Gins.--Bat-fowling.--Its Two

Significations.--Bird-Lime, Bird-Bolts, and Birding-Pieces. 123

CHAPTER VI.

THE BIRDS UNDER DOMESTICATION.

Cock.--“Cock-Crow.”--“Cock-shut-time.”--“Cock-a-Hoop.”--“Cock and

Pye.”--Cock-Fighting.--Ancestry of the Domestic Cock.--The

Peacock.--Its Introduction into Europe, and Ancient Value.--In

Request for the Table.--The Turkey.--Date of Introduction into

England.--Shakespeare’s Anachronism.--Pigeons.--First used as

Letter-Carriers.--A Present of Pigeons.--Meaning of

“Pigeon-Liver’d.”--Pigeon-Post.--Mode of Feeding the Young.--The

Barbary Pigeon.--The Rock-Dove.--Doves and Dovecotes.--The “Doves

of Venus.”--“The Dove of Paphos.”--“As True as Turtle to her Mate:”

“as Plantage to the Moon.”--Mahomet’s Dove.--A Dish of Doves.--The

Goose.--“Green-Geese,” and “Stubble-Geese.”--“Cackling home to

Camelot.”--“The Wild-Goose Chase.”--The Swan.--“The Bird of

Apollo.”--Song of the Swan.--Habits of the Swan.--The Swan’s

Nest.--As Soft as Swan’s-down.--“Juno’s Swans.”--Cygnets. 167

CHAPTER VII.

THE GAME-BIRDS AND “QUARRY” FLOWN AT BY FALCONERS.

Sporting in Shakespeare’s Day.--The Pheasant.--Date of its

Introduction into Britain.--Ancient Value of Game.

--Game-Preserving.--Game-Laws.--Partridge-Hawking.--Anecdote

of Charles I.--Quails.--Quail-Fighting.--The Lapwing.--Feigning to

be Wounded.--Running as soon as Hatched.--The Heron, or

Hernshaw.--Heron-Hawking.--Hawk and Hernshaw--Heron at Table.--The

Woodcock.--Springes for Woodcocks.--How to Make a Springe.--A

Gin.--“The Woodcock’s Head.”--The Snipe. 209

CHAPTER VIII.

WILD-FOWL AND SEA-FOWL.

“A Flight of Fowl.”--Habit of Wounded

Birds.--“Duck-Hunting.”--Swimming “like a Duck.”--Wild-fowling in

Shakespeare’s Day.--“The Stalking-Horse.”--“The Caliver.”--“The

Stale.”--Wild-Geese.--Sign of Hard Weather.--The Barnacle

Goose.--Barnacles.--Wild Fowl.--Divers and Grebes.--The

“Loon.”--The “Di-dapper.”--The Cormorant.--Its Voracity.--Fishing

with Cormorants.--The King’s Cormorants.--Their “Keep” at

Westminster.--Fishing at Thetford.--The Master of the

Cormorants.--Entries in State Papers.--The Home of the

Cormorant.--The Sea-side.--Shakespeare’s Sea-cliffs and

“Sea-mells.”--Gulls and Gull-Catchers. 235

CHAPTER IX.

BIRDS NOT INCLUDED IN THE FOREGOING CHAPTERS.

The Parrot “clamorous against Rain.”--Talking like a Parrot.--A

rare “Parrot-Teacher.”--The Popinjay.--The Starling.--Its Talking

Powers.--The Kingfisher.--Halcyon Days.--Flight of the

Kingfisher.--Estimated Speed.--The Swallow and “Martlet.”--The

Swallow’s Herb and Swallow’s Stone.--The “Ostridge.”--“Eating

Iron”--Bating with the Wind.--The Pelican.--Feeding its Young with

its Blood.--Explanation of the Fable.--Former Existence of a

Pelican in the English Fens.--Conclusion. 271

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.

[THE HEAD AND TAIL PIECES FROM DESIGNS BY THE AUTHOR.]

PAGE

William Shakespeare, adapted from the Chandos Portrait

by J. Wolf, engraved by G. Pearson _Frontis._

Deer-Shooting, drawn by J. G. Keulemans, engraved by G. Pearson 1

Rabbit and Beagle „ „ 22

Goshawk and Hare „ „ 23

White-tailed Eagle in Trap „ „ 48

Falcon and Wild Duck „ „ 49

The Jesses „ „ 58

The Bells „ „ 60

The Hood „ „ 61

The Cadge „ „ 63

Imping „ „ 68

The Keeper’s Tree „ „ 82

Owl Mobbed by Small Birds „ „ 83

Long-eared Owl „ „ 98

Rooks and Magpies „ „ 99

Jay Stealing Eggs „ „ 122

Blackbird, Thrush, } „ „ 123

Nightingale, and Wren }

Bird-Trap „ „ 162

Birding-Piece of Prince Charles „ „ 165

Sparrow and Trap „ „ 166

Turkey, Peacock, and Pigeon „ „ 167

Dog and Wounded Duck „ „ 208

Pheasant and Partridges „ „ 209

A Springe for Woodcocks „ „ 229

Quails Fighting „ „ 234

Wild-Fowl Alighting „ „ 235

Caliver of the Sixteenth Century „ „ 242

The Barnacle Goose „ „ 247

The Barnacle Goose Tree. } „ „ 248

_From Aldrovandus_ }

The Barnacle Goose Tree. } „ „ 250

_From Gerard_ }

Barnacles. _From Nature._ „ „ 253

Black-headed Gull „ „ 270

Kingfisher and Swallows „ „ 271

Pelican and Young „ „ 298

[Illustration]

INTRODUCTION.

Before proceeding to examine the ornithology of Shakespeare, it may be

well to take a glance at his knowledge of natural history in general.

Pope has expressed the opinion that whatever object of nature or branch

of science Shakespeare either speaks of or describes, it is always with

competent if not with exclusive knowledge. His descriptions are always

exact, his metaphors appropriate, and remarkably drawn from the true

nature and inherent qualities of each subject. There can indeed be

little doubt that Shakespeare must have derived the greater portion of

his knowledge of nature from his own observation, and no one can fail to

be delighted with the variety and richness of the images which he has by

this means produced.

Whether we accompany him to the woods and fields, midst “daisies pied

and violets blue,” or sit with him “under the shade of melancholy

boughs,” whether we follow him to “the brook that brawls along the

wood,” or to that sea “whose rocky shore beats back the envious siege of

watery Neptune,” we are alike instructed by his observations, and

charmed with his apt descriptions. How often do the latter strike us as

echoes of our own experience, sent forth in fitter tones than we could

find.

A sportsman is oft-times more or less a naturalist. His rambles in

search of game bring him in contact with creatures of such curious

structure and habits, with insects and plants of such rare beauty, that

the purpose of his walk is for the time forgotten, and he turns aside

from sport, to admire and learn from nature.

That Shakespeare was both a sportsman and a naturalist, there is much

evidence to show. During the age in which he lived “hawking” was much in

vogue. Throughout the Plays, we find frequent allusions to this sport,

and the accurate employment of terms used exclusively in falconry, as

well as the beautiful metaphors derived therefrom, prove that our poet

had much practical knowledge on the subject. We shall have occasion

later to discuss his knowledge of falconry at greater length. It will

suffice for the present to observe that there are many passages in the

Plays which to one unacquainted with the habits of animals and birds, or

ignorant of hawking phraseology, would be wholly unintelligible, but

which are otherwise found to contain the most beautiful and forcible

metaphors. As instances of this may be cited that passage in _Othello_

(Act iii. Sc. 3), where the Moor compares his suspected wife to a

“haggard falcon,” and the hawking scene in Act ii. of the Second Part of

_King Henry VI._[11]

Shakespeare, although a contemplative man, appears to have found but

little “recreation” in fishing, and the most enthusiastic disciple of

Izaak Walton would find it difficult to illustrate a work on angling

with quotations from Shakespeare. He might refer us to _Twelfth Night_

(Act ii. Sc. 5), where Maria, on the appearance of Malvolio, exclaims,

“Here comes the _trout_ that must be caught with tickling;” and to the

song of Caliban in _The Tempest_ (Act ii. Sc. 2), “No more dams I’ll

make for fish.” Possibly, by straining a point or two, he might ask with

Benedick, in _Much Ado about Nothing_ (Act i. Sc. 1), “Do you play the

flouting Jack?”

But our poet seems to have considered--

“The pleasant’st angling is to see the fish

Cut with her golden oars the silver stream,

And greedily devour the treacherous bait.”

_Much Ado_, Act iii. Sc. 1.[12]

His forte lay more in hunting and fowling than in fishing,[13] and in

all that relates to deer-stalking (as practised in his day, when the

deer was killed with cross-bow or bow and arrow), to deer-hunting with

hounds, and to coursing, we find him fully informed.

In the less noble art of bird-catching[14] he was probably no mean

adept, while the knowledge which he displays of the habits of our wild

animals, as the fox, the badger, the weasel, and the wild cat, could

only have been acquired by one accustomed to much observation by flood

and field.

On each of these subjects a chapter might be written, but it will

suffice for our present purpose to draw attention only to some of the

more remarkable passages in support of the assertions above made.

Deer-shooting was a favourite sport of both sexes in Shakespeare’s day,

and to enable the ladies to enjoy it in safety, “stands,” or

“standings,” were erected in many parks, and concealed with boughs. From

these the ladies with bow and arrow, or cross-bow, shot at the deer as

they were driven past them by the keepers.

Queen Elizabeth was extremely fond of this sport, and the nobility who

entertained her in her different progresses, made large hunting parties,

which she usually joined when the weather was favourable. She frequently

amused herself in following the hounds. “Her Majesty,” says a courtier,

writing to Sir Robert Sidney, “is well and excellently disposed to

hunting, for every second day she is on horseback, and continues the

sport long.”[15] At this time Her Majesty had just entered the

seventy-seventh year of her age, and was then at her palace at Oatlands.

Often, when she was not disposed to hunt herself, she was entertained

with a sight of the sport. At Cowdray Park, Sussex, then the seat of

Lord Montagu (1591), Her Majesty one day after dinner saw “sixteen

bucks, all having fayre lawe, pulled downe with greyhounds in a laund or

lawn.”[16]

No wonder, then, that the ladies of England, with the royal example

before their eyes, found such delight in the chase during the age of

which we speak, and not content with being mere spectators, vied with

each other in the skilful use of the bow.

To this pastime Shakespeare has made frequent allusion.

In _Love’s Labour’s Lost_, the first scene of the fourth act is laid in

a park, where the Princess asks,--

“Then, forester,[17] my friend, where is the bush

That we must stand and play the murtherer in?”

To which the forester replies,--

“Hereby, upon the edge of yonder coppice;

A ‘stand’ where you may make the fairest shoot.”

And in _Henry VI._ Part III. Act iii. Sc. 1,--

“Under this thick-grown brake we’ll shroud ourselves;

For through this laund anon the deer will come;

And in this covert will we make our ‘stand,’

Culling the principal of all the deer.”

Again, in _Cymbeline_ (Act iii. Sc. 4), “When thou hast ta’en thy

‘stand,’ the elected deer before thee.” Other passages might be

mentioned, but it will be sufficient to refer only to _The Merry Wives

of Windsor_ (Act v. Sc. 5), and to the song in _As You Like It_ (Act iv.

Sc. 2), commencing “What shall he have that kill’d the deer?”

Deer-stealing in Shakespeare’s day was regarded only as a youthful

frolic. Antony Wood (“Athen. Oxon.” i. 371), speaking of Dr. John

Thornborough, who was admitted a member of Magdalen College, Oxford, in

1570, at the age of eighteen, and who was successively Bishop of

Limerick and Bishop of Bristol and Worcester, informs us, that he and

his kinsman, Robert Pinkney, “seldom studied or gave themselves to their

books, but spent their time in the fencing schools, and dancing schools,

in stealing deer and conies, in hunting the hare and wooing girls.”

Shakespeare himself has been accused of this indiscretion. The story is

first told in print by Rowe, in his “Life of Shakespeare”:--“He had, by

a misfortune common enough to young fellows, fallen into ill company,

and amongst them some that made a frequent practice of deer-stealing

engaged him more than once in robbing a park that belonged to Sir Thomas

Lucy of Charlecote, near Stratford. For this he was prosecuted by that

gentleman, as he thought somewhat too severely; and in order to revenge

that ill-usage, he made a ballad upon him. And though this, probably the

first essay of his poetry, be lost, yet it is said to have been so very

bitter, that it redoubled the prosecution against him to that degree,

that he was obliged to leave his business and family in Warwickshire,

for some time, and shelter himself in London.”

Mr. Staunton, in his library edition of Shakespeare’s Plays, says: “What

degree of authenticity the story possesses will never probably be known.

Rowe derived his version of it no doubt through Betterton; but Davies

makes no allusion to the source from which he drew his information, and

we are left to grope our way, so far as this important incident is

concerned, mainly by the light of collateral circumstances. These, it

must be admitted, serve in some respects to confirm the tradition.

Shakespeare certainly quitted Stratford-upon-Avon when a young man, and

it could have been no ordinary impulse which drove him to leave wife,

children, friends, and occupation, to take up his abode among strangers

in a distant place.

“Then there is the pasquinade, and the unmistakable identification of

Sir Thomas Lucy as Justice Shallow, in the Second Part of _Henry IV._,

and in the opening scene of _The Merry Wives of Windsor_. The

genuineness of the former may be doubted; but the ridicule in the Plays

betokens a latent hostility to the Lucy family, which is unaccountable,

except upon the supposition that the deerstealing foray is founded on

facts.”

The more legitimate sport in killing deer was by means of blood-hounds,

and in _The Midsummer Night’s Dream_ we are furnished with an accurate

description of the dogs in most repute:--

“My hounds are bred out of the Spartan kind,

So flew’d, so sanded; and their heads are hung

With ears that sweep away the morning dew;

Crook-knee’d, and dew-lapp’d like Thessalian bulls;

Slow in pursuit, but match’d in mouth like bells,

Each under each. A cry more tuneable

Was never holla’d to, nor cheer’d with horn.”

Act iv. Sc. 1.

In the _Comedy of Errors_ (Act iv. Sc. 2), Dromio of Syracuse alludes to

“a hound that runs counter, and yet draws dry foot well,” and in the

_Taming of the Shrew_ we have the following animated dialogue:--

“_Lord_. Saw’st thou not, boy, how Silver made it good

At the hedge-corner, in the coldest fault?

I would not lose the dog for twenty pound.

_Huntsman_. Why, Belman is as good as he, my lord;

He cried upon it at the merest loss,

And twice to-day pick’d out the dullest scent:

Trust me, I take him for the better dog.”

Many more such instances might be adduced, but the reader might perhaps

be tempted to exclaim, with Timon of Athens:--

“Get thee away, and take thy beagles with thee.”

Act iv. Sc. 3.

We will therefore only glance at that amusing scene in the _Merry Wives

of Windsor_ (Act v. Sc. 5), where Falstaff appears in Windsor Forest,

disguised with a buck’s head on. “Divide me,” says he, “like a

brib’d-buck, each a haunch: I will keep my sides to myself, my shoulders

for the fellow of this walk, and my horns I bequeath your husbands.”

We have here an allusion to the ancient method of “breaking up” a

deer.[18] “The fellow of this walk” is the forester, to whom it was

customary on such occasions to present a shoulder. Dame Juliana Berners,

in her “Boke of St. Albans,” 1496, says,--

“And the right shoulder, wheresoever he be,

Bere it to the _foster_, for that is fee.”

And in Turbervile’s “Book of Hunting,” 1575, the distribution of the

various parts of a deer is minutely described.

The touching description of a wounded stag, in _As You Like It_, can

scarcely escape notice. Alluding to “the melancholy Jaques,” one of the

lords says,--

“To-day my lord of Amiens and myself

Did steal behind him, as he lay along

Under an oak, whose antique root peeps out

Upon the brook that brawls along this wood;

To the which place a poor sequestred stag,

That from the hunters’ aim had ta’en a hurt,

Did come to languish; and, indeed, my lord,

The wretched animal heav’d forth such groans,

That their discharge did stretch his leathern coat

Almost to bursting; and the big round tears

Cours’d one another down his innocent nose

In piteous chase; and thus the hairy fool,

Much marked of the melancholy Jaques,

Stood on th’ extremest verge of the swift brook,

Augmenting it with tears.”

Act ii. Sc. 1.

Although the deer, as the nobler animal, has received more attention

from our poet than the fox and the hare, yet the two last-named are by

no means forgotten:--

“The fox [who] barks not when he would steal the lamb”

(_Henry VI._ Part II. Act iii. Sc. 1);

who, when he “hath once got in his nose,” will “soon find means to make

the body follow” (_Henry VI._ Part III. Act iv. Sc. 7); and--

“Who ne’er so tame, so cherish’d and lock’d up,

Will have a wild trick of his ancestors”

(_Cymbeline_, Act v. Sc. 2);

receives his share of notice, although it is not always in his praise,

and “subtle as the fox” has become a proverb (_Cymbeline_, Act iii. Sc.

3).

From the “subtle fox” to the “timorous hare,” the transition is easy.

What “more a coward than a hare”? (_Twelfth Night_, Act iii. Sc. 5.)

In Roxburgh and Aberdeen, as we learn from Jamieson’s “Scottish

Dictionary,” a hare is termed “a bawd,” and the knowledge of this fact

enables us to understand the dialogue in _Romeo and Juliet_, which would

otherwise be unintelligible:--

“_Mercutio._ A bawd, a bawd, a bawd! So ho!

_Romeo._ What hast thou found?

_Mercutio._ No hare, sir.”

Act ii. Sc. 4.

That coursing was in vogue in Shakespeare’s day, and practised in the

same way as at present, we may infer from such expressions as “a good

hare-finder” (_Much Ado_, Act i. Sc. 1), “Holla me like a hare”

(_Coriolanus_, Act i. Sc. 8), and “I see you stand like greyhounds in

the slips, straining upon the start” (_Henry V._ Act iii. Sc. 1).

Rabbits were taken, and no doubt poached, in the same way then as now;

for we read of the coney[19] “that you see dwell where she is kindled”

(_As You Like It_, Act iii. Sc. 2) struggling “in the net.” (_Henry VI._

Part III. Act i. Sc. 4.)

The Brock[20] or Badger (_Twelfth Night_, Act ii. Sc. 5); the Wild Cat

who “sleeps by day” (_Merch. of Venice_, Act ii. Sc. 5, and _Pericles_,

Act iii. Intro.); “the quarrelous Weasel” (_Cymbeline_, Act iii. Sc. 4,

and _Henry IV._ Part I. Act ii. Sc. 3); “the Dormouse of little valour”

(_Twelfth Night_, Act iii. Sc. 1); “the joiner Squirrel” (_Romeo and

Juliet_, Act i. Sc. 4), whose habit of hoarding appears to have been

well known to Shakespeare (_Midsummer Night’s Dream_, Act iv. Sc. 2);

and “the blind Mole,” who “casts copp’d hills towards heaven”

(_Pericles_, Act i. Sc. 1);[21]--all these are mentioned in their turn,

while the Bat “with leathern wing,”[22] “the venom Toad,” “the thorny

Hedgehog,”[23] “the Adder blue,” and the “spotted Snake with double

tongue,” are all called in most aptly by way of simile or metaphor.

We cannot forget Titania’s directions to her fairies in regard to

Bats:--

“Some war with _rear mice_[24] for their leathern wings,

To make my small elves coats”

(_Midsummer Night’s Dream_, Act ii. Sc. 2);

nor the comfortable seat which Ariel appears to have found “on the bat’s

back” (_Tempest_, Act v. Sc. 1).

The following striking passage must also be familiar to readers of

Shakespeare:--

“Ere the bat hath flown

His cloister’d flight; ere, to black Hecate’s summons,

The shard-borne beetle, with his drowsy hums,

Hath rung night’s yawning peal,

There shall be done a deed of dreadful note.”

_Macbeth_, Act iii. Sc. 2.

In a printed broadside of the time of Queen Anne, in the collection of

the Society of Antiquaries of London, is the following curious fable

relating to the Bat:--

“615. THE BIRDS AND BEASTS. A Fable.

“Once the Birds and Beasts strove for the prerogative: the neuter

Batt, seeing the Beasts prevail, goes to them and shows them her

large forehead, long ears, and teeth: afterwards, when the Birds

prevail’d, the Batt flies with the Birds, and sings chit, chit,

chat, and shows them her wings.

“Hence Beakless Bird, hence Winged Beast, they cry’d;

Hence plumeless wings; thus scorn her either side.

“LONDON. PRINTED FOR EDW. LEWIS,

FLOWER-DE-LUCE COURT, FLEET STREET. 1710.”

In alluding to the “venom toad” as “mark’d by the destinies to be

avoided,” Shakespeare probably only treated it as other writers had done

before him, and, without any personal investigation of the matter,

ranked it with the viper and other poisonous reptiles, when in fact it

is perfectly harmless.

The habit which the snake has, in common with other reptiles, of

periodically casting its skin or slough, is frequently alluded to in the

Plays, where that covering is sometimes called “the enamell’d skin”

(_Midsummer Night’s Dream_, Act ii. Sc. 1); at other times the “casted

slough” (_Henry V._ Act iv. Sc. 1, and _Twelfth Night_, Act iii. Sc. 4);

and the “shining checker’d slough” (_Henry VI._ Part II. Act iii. Sc.

1).

It is difficult to say why the Adder is supposed to be deaf, unless

because it has no visible ears--but then the term would apply to other

reptiles. Shakespeare has several times alluded to this. In the Second

Part of _King Henry VI._ Act iii. Sc. 2, Queen Margaret asks the King,--

“What, art thou, like the adder, waxen deaf?”

And in _Troilus and Cressida_, Act ii. Sc. 2, Hector says to Paris and

Troilus,--

“Pleasure and revenge

Have ears more deaf than adders to the voice

Of any true decision.”

Again, in Sonnet CXII., “the adder’s sense” is referred to in such a way

as to leave no doubt of the poet’s impression that adders do not hear.

“_Caliban._ Sometime am I

All wound with adders, who, with cloven tongues

Do hiss me into madness.”

_Tempest_, Act ii. Sc. 2.

The “eyeless venom’d worm” referred to in _Timon of Athens_, Act iv. Sc.

3, is of course the Slow-worm (_Anguis fragilis_).

The observant naturalist must doubtless have remarked the partiality

evinced by snakes and other reptiles for basking in the sun. Shakespeare

has noticed that--

“The snake lies rolled in the cheerful sun.”

_Titus Andronicus_, Act ii. Sc. 3.

And--

“It is the bright day that brings forth the adder;

And that craves wary walking.”

_Julius Cæsar_, Act ii. Sc. 1.

In _Macbeth_, Act iii. Sc. 2, allusion is made to the wonderful vitality

which snakes possess, and to the popular notion that they are enabled,

when cut in two, to reunite the dissevered portions and recover:--

“We have scotch’d the snake, not kill’d it;

She’ll close and be herself.”

Passing to the insect world, we may well be astonished at the number of

species to which Shakespeare has alluded. Although the same attention

has not been given to the insects as to the birds, the following have,

nevertheless, been noted. Many others, doubtless, have been overlooked.

The Beetle (_Macbeth_, Act iii. Sc. 2; _King Lear_, Act iv. Sc. 6;

_Measure for Measure_, Act iii. Sc. 1). The Grasshopper (_Romeo and

Juliet_, Act i. Sc. 4). The Cricket, (_Pericles_, Act iii. Introduction;

_Winter’s Tale_, Act ii. Sc. 1; _Romeo and Juliet_, Act i. Sc. 4;

_Cymbeline_, Act ii. Sc. 2). The Glowworm (_Hamlet_, Act i. Sc. 5); and

the Caterpillar (_Richard II._ Act ii. Sc. 4; _Henry VI._ Part II. Act

iii. Sc. 1; _Twelfth Night_, Act ii. Sc. 1; _Romeo and Juliet_, Act i.

Sc. 1). The Butterfly (_Troilus and Cressida_, Act iii. Sc. 3;

_Midsummer Night’s Dream_, Act iii. Sc. 1); and Moth (_Merchant of

Venice_, Act ii. Sc. 9; _King John_, Act iv. Sc. 1). The House-fly

(_Titus Andronicus_, Act iii. Sc. 2). The small Gilded-fly (_King Lear_,

Act iv. Sc. 6). The Blow-fly (_Love’s Labour’s Lost_, Act v. Sc. 2;

_Tempest_, Act iii. Sc. 1); and the Gad-fly, or Brize (_Troilus and

Cressida_, Act i. Sc. 3). The Grey-coated Gnat (_Romeo and Juliet_, Act

i. Sc. 4; _Comedy of Errors_, Act ii. Sc. 2); the Wasp (_Taming of the

Shrew_, Act ii. Sc. 1; _Two Gentlemen of Verona_, Act i. Sc. 2; _Henry

VIII._ Act iii. Sc. 2); the Drone (_Henry V._ Act i. Sc. 2); and the

Honey-bee (numerous passages).

To three only of these shall we direct further attention: firstly,

because a more extended notice of all would be beyond the limits of the

present work; and, secondly, because the Entomology of Shakespeare has

been already dealt with elsewhere.[25]

These three are the Bee, the Drone, and the Fly, and we select

quotations in reference to these in order to illustrate Shakespeare’s

knowledge of the subject on which he wrote; the lessons to be learnt

from his allusions; and the sympathy which he has manifested for all

living creatures.

What better picture of the interior of a hive can be found than the

following? How well are the duties of the inmates described!

“For so work the honey bees,

Creatures that, by a rule in nature, teach

The act of order to a peopled kingdom.

They have a king, and officers of sorts:

Where some, like magistrates, correct at home;

Others, like merchants, venture trade abroad;

Others, like soldiers, armed in their stings,

Make boot upon the summer’s velvet buds;

Which pillage they with merry march bring home

To the tent-royal of their emperor;

Who, busied in his majesty, surveys

The singing masons building roofs of gold,

The civil citizens kneading-up the honey;

The poor mechanic porters crowding in

Their heavy burdens at his narrow gate;

The sad-ey’d justice, with his surly hum,

Delivering o’er to executors pale

The lazy yawning drone. I this infer,--

That many things, having full reference

To one consent, may work contrariously;

As many arrows, loosed several ways,

Come to one mark; as many ways meet in one town;

As many fresh streams meet in one salt sea;

As many lines close in the dial’s centre;

So may a thousand actions, once afoot,

End in one purpose, and be all well borne

Without defeat.”

_Henry V._ Act i. Sc. 2.

“The lazy yawning drone” is frequently alluded to as the type of

idleness and inactivity (_Pericles_, Act ii. Sc. 1; _Henry VI._ Part II.

Act iii. Sc. 2).

And we are counselled--

“Not to eat honey, like a drone,

From others’ labours.”

_Pericles_, Act i. Sc. 4.

Who does not remember the scene in which Titus Andronicus reproves his

brother Marcus for killing a fly at dinner?--

“_Marcus._ Alas, my lord, I have but kill’d a fly.

_Titus._ But how if that fly had a father and mother?

How would he hang his slender gilded wings,

And buzz lamenting doings in the air!

Poor harmless fly!

That, with his pretty buzzing melody,

Came here to make us merry! and thou hast kill’d him.”

_Titus Andronicus_, Act iii. Sc. 2.

This is but one of the many lessons taught us by Shakespeare in his

allusions to the animal world, and the kindly spirit which characterizes

all his dealings with animals is frequently exemplified throughout the

Plays; perhaps nowhere so clearly as in _Measure for Measure_, Act iii.

Sc. 1, where we are told--

“The sense of death is most in apprehension;

And the poor beetle that we tread upon,

In corporal sufferance finds a pang as great

As when a giant dies.”

Probably enough has been said to show the reader that Shakespeare’s

knowledge of natural history was by no means slight, and if it be

thought to have been only general, it was, at all events, accurate. The

use which he has made of this knowledge, throughout his works, in

depicting virtue and vice in their true colours, in pointing out lessons

of industry, patience, and mercy, and in showing the profit to be

derived from a study of natural objects, is everywhere apparent.

The words of the banished Duke, in _As You Like It_ (Act ii. Sc. 1),

seem to no one so applicable as to Shakespeare himself. He--

“Finds tongues in trees, books in the running brooks,

Sermons in stones, and good in everything.”

But to come to the Ornithology. The accurate observations on this

subject, the apt allusions, and the beautiful metaphors to be met with

throughout the Plays, may be said to owe their origin mainly to three

causes. Firstly, Shakespeare had a good practical knowledge of Falconry,

a pastime which, being much in vogue in his day, brought under his

notice, almost of necessity, many wild birds, exclusive of the various

species which were hawked at and killed. Secondly, he was a great

reader, and, possessing a good memory, was enabled subsequently to

express in verse ideas which had been suggested by older authors.

Thirdly, and most important of all, he was a genuine naturalist, and

gathered a large amount of information from his own practical

observations. In all his walks, he evidently did not fail to note even

the most trivial facts in natural history, and these were treasured up

in his memory, to be called forth as occasion required, to be aptly and

eloquently introduced into his works.

Apart from the consideration that a poet may be expected, almost of

necessity, to invoke the birds of song, Shakespeare has gone further,

and displays a greater knowledge of ornithology, and a greater accuracy

in his statements, than is generally the case with poets. How far we

shall succeed in proving this assertion, it will be for the reader of

the following pages to determine.

[Illustration]

CHAPTER I.

THE EAGLE AND THE LARGER BIRDS OF PREY.

At the head of the diurnal birds of prey, most authors have agreed in

placing the Eagles. Their large size, powerful flight, and great

muscular strength, give them a superiority which is universally

admitted. In reviewing, therefore, the birds of which Shakespeare has

made mention, no apology seems to be necessary for commencing with the

genus _Aquila_.

Throughout the works of our great dramatist, frequent allusions may be

found to an eagle, but the word “eagle” is almost always employed in a

generic sense, and in a few instances only can we infer, from the

context, that a particular species is indicated. Indeed, it is not

improbable that in the poet’s opinion only one species of eagle existed.

Be this as it may, the introduction of an eagle and his attributes, by

way of simile or metaphor, has been accomplished by Shakespeare with

much beauty and effect. Considered as the emblem of majesty, the eagle

has been variously styled “the king of birds,” “the royal bird,” “the

princely eagle,” and “Jove’s bird,” while so great is his power of

vision, that an “eagle eye” has become proverbial.

[Sidenote: POWER OF VISION.]

“Behold, his eye,

As bright as is the eagle’s, lightens forth

Controlling majesty.”

_Richard II._ Act iii. Sc. 3.

The clearness of vision in birds is indeed extraordinary, and has been

calculated, by the eminent French naturalist Lacépède, to be nine times

more extensive than that of the farthest-sighted man. The opinion that

the eagle possessed the power of gazing undazzled at the sun, is of

great antiquity. Pliny relates that it exposes its brood to this test as

soon as hatched, to prove if they be genuine or not. Chaucer refers to

the belief in his “Assemblie of Foules”:--

“There mighten men the royal egal find,

That with his sharp look persith the sonne.”

So also Spenser, in his “Hymn of Heavenly Beauty,”--

“And like the native brood of eagle’s kind,

On that bright sun of glory fix their eyes.”

[Sidenote: AN EAGLE EYE.]

It is not surprising, therefore, that Shakespeare has borrowed the

idea:--

“Nay, if thou be that princely eagle’s bird,

Show thy descent by gazing ’gainst the sun.”

_Henry VI._ Part III. Act ii. Sc. 1.

Again--

“What peremptory eagle-sighted eye

Dares look upon the heaven of her brow,

That is not blinded by her majesty?”

_Love’s Labour’s Lost_, Act iv. Sc. 3.

But in the same play and scene we are told--

“A lover’s eyes will gaze an eagle blind.”

And in this respect Paris was said to excel:--

“An _eagle_, madam,

Hath not so green, so quick, so fair an eye,

As Paris hath.”

_Romeo and Juliet_, Act iii. Sc. 5.

The supposition that the eye of the eagle is green must be regarded as a

poetic license. In all the species of this genus with which we are

acquainted, the colour of the iris is either hazel or yellow. But it

would be absurd to look for exactness in trifles such as these.

[Sidenote: POWER OF FLIGHT.]

The power of flight in the eagle is no less surprising than his power of

vision. Birds of this kind have been killed which measured seven or

eight feet from tip to tip of wing, and were strong enough to carry off

hares, lambs, and even young children. This strength of wing is not

unnoticed by Shakespeare:--

“This was but as a fly by an eagle.”

_Antony and Cleopatra_, Act ii. Sc. 2.

And--

“An eagle flight, bold, and forth on,

Leaving no track behind.”

_Timon of Athens_, Act i. Sc. 1.

This last line recalls to mind the following allusion to the flight of

the Jerfalcon:--“Then prone she dashes with so much velocity, that the

impression of her path remains on the eye, in the same manner as that of

the shooting meteor or flashing lightning, and you fancy that there is a

torrent of falcon rushing for fathoms through the air.”[26]

Spenser, in the fifth book of his “Faerie Queene” (iv. 42), has depicted

the grandeur of an eagle on the wing:--

“Like to an eagle in his kingly pride

Soring thro’ his wide empire of the aire

To weather his brode sailes.”

But notwithstanding his great powers of flight, we are reminded that the

eagle is not always secure. Guns, traps, and other engines of

destruction are directed against him, whenever and wheresoever

opportunity occurs:--

“And often, to our comfort, shall we find

The sharded beetle in a safer hold

Than is the full-wing’d eagle.”

_Cymbeline_, Act iii. Sc. 3.

[Sidenote: A GOOD OMEN.]

With the Romans, the eagle was a bird of good omen. Josephus, the Jewish

historian, says the eagle was selected for the Roman legionary standard,

because he is the king of all birds, and the most powerful of them all,

whence he has become the emblem of empire, and the omen of victory.[27]

Accordingly, we read in _Julius Cæsar_, Act v. Sc. 1:--

“Coming from Sardis, on our former ensign

Two mighty eagles fell; and there they perch’d,

Gorging and feeding from our soldiers’ hands.”

This incident is more fully detailed in North’s “Plutarch,” as

follows:--“When they raised their campe, there came two eagles, that

flying with a marvellous force, lighted upon two of the foremost

ensigns, and alwaies followed the souldiers, which gave them meate and

fed them, untill they came neare to the citie of Phillipes; and there

one day onely before the battell, they both flew away.”

The ensign of the eagle was not peculiar, however, to the Romans. The

golden eagle, with extended wings, was borne by the Persian

monarchs,[28] and it is not improbable that from them the Romans

adopted it; while the Persians themselves may have borrowed the symbol

from the ancient Assyrians, on whose banners it waved until Babylon was

conquered by Cyrus.

As a bird of good omen, the eagle is often mentioned by Shakespeare:--

“I chose an eagle, and did avoid a puttock.”

_Cymbeline_, Act i. Sc. 2.

The name “Puttock” has been applied both to the Kite and the Common

Buzzard, and both were considered birds of ill omen.

[Sidenote: THE BIRD OF JOVE.]

In Act iv. Sc. 2, of the same play, we read,--

“I saw Jove’s bird, the Roman eagle, wing’d

From the spungy south to this part of the west,

There vanish’d in the sunbeams.”

This was said to portend success to the Roman host. In Izaak Walton’s

“Compleat Angler,” we are furnished with a reason for styling the eagle

“Jove’s bird.” The falconer, in discoursing on the merits of his

recreation with a brother angler, says,--“In the air my troops of hawks

soar upon high, and when they are lost in the sight of men, then they

attend upon and converse with the gods; therefore I think my eagle is so

justly styled Jove’s servant in ordinary.”

“For the Roman eagle,

From south to west on wing soaring aloft,

Lessen’d herself, and in the beams o’ the sun

So vanish’d: which foreshadow’d our princely eagle,

The imperial Cæsar, should again unite

His favour with the radiant Cymbeline,

Which shines here in the west.”

_Cymbeline_, Act v. Sc. 5.

[Sidenote: THE ROMAN EAGLE.]

In a paper “On the Roman Imperial and Crested Eagles,”[29] Mr. Hogg

says,--“The Roman Eagle, which is generally termed the Imperial Eagle,

is represented with its head _plain_, that is to say, _not crested_. It

is in appearance the same as the attendant bird of the ‘king of gods and

men,’ and is generally represented as standing at the foot of his

throne, or sometimes as the bearer of his thunder and lightning. Indeed

he also often appears perched on the top of his sceptre. He is always

considered as the attribute or emblem of ‘Father Jove.’”

A good copy of this bird of Jupiter, called by Virgil and Ovid “Jovis

armiger,” from an antique group, representing the eagle and Ganymedes,

may be seen in Bell’s “Pantheon,” vol. i. Also “a small bronze eagle,

the ensign of a Roman legion,” is given in Duppa’s “Travels in Sicily”

(2nd ed., 1829, tab. iv.). That traveller states, that the original

bronze figure is preserved in the Museum of the Convent of St. Nicholas

d’Arcun, at Catania. This Convent is now called Convento di S.

Benedetto, according to Mr. G. Dennis, in his “Handbook of Sicily,” (p.

349); and he mentions this ensign as “a Roman legionary eagle in

excellent preservation.”

[Sidenote: THE ENSIGN OF THE EAGLE.]

From the second century before Christ, the eagle is said to have become

the sole military ensign, and it was mostly small in size, because

Florus (lib. 4, cap. 12) relates that an ensign-bearer, in the wars of

Julius Cæsar, in order to prevent the enemy from taking it, pulled off

the eagle from the top of the gilt pole, and hid it by placing it under

cover of his belt.

In later times, the eagle was borne with the legion, which, indeed,

occasionally took its name, “_aquila_.” This eagle, which was also

adopted by the Roman emperors for their imperial symbol, is considered

to be the _Aquila heliaca_ of Savigny (_imperialis_ of Temminck), and

resembles our golden eagle, _Aquila chrysaëtos_, in plumage, though of a

darker brown, and with more or less white on the scapulars. It differs

also in the structure of the foot. It inhabits Southern Europe, North

Africa, Palestine, and India. Living examples of this species may be

seen at the present time in the Gardens of the Zoological Society.

[Sidenote: HABITS AND ATTITUDES.]

Sicilius, in _Cymbeline_ (Act v. Sc. 4), speaking of the apparition and

descent of Jupiter, who was seated upon an eagle, says,--

“The holy eagle

Stoop’d, as to foot us: his ascension is

More sweet than our blest fields: his royal bird

Prunes the immortal wing, and cloys his beak,

As when his god is pleas’d.”

“_Prune_” signifies to clean and adjust the feathers, and is synonymous

with _plume_. A word more generally used, perhaps, than either, is

_preen_.

_Cloys_ is, doubtless, a misprint for _cleys_, that is, _claws_. Those

who have kept hawks must often have observed the habit which they have

of raising one foot, and whetting the beak against it. This is the

action to which Shakespeare refers. The same word occurs in Ben Jonson’s

“Underwoods,” (vii. 29) thus:--

“To save her from the seize

Of vulture death, and those relentless _cleys_.”

The verb “to cloy” has a very different signification, namely, “to

satiate,” “choke,” or “clog up.” Shakespeare makes frequent use of it.

In “Lucrece” it occurs:--

“But poorly rich, so wanteth in his store,

That, _cloy’d_ with much, he pineth still for more.”

And again, in _Richard II._ (Act i. Sc. 3):--

“O, who can hold a fire in his hand,

By thinking on the frosty Caucasus?

Or _cloy_ the hungry edge of appetite,

By bare imagination of a feast?”