Whose price hath launch'd above a thousand ships.
_Troilus and Cressida_, Act ii, sc. 2, l. 82.
First Folio, at end of "Histories", unnumbered page
(596 of facsimile), col. A, line 19.
The greatest of the world's poets lived in a period midway between the
highest development of Renaissance civilization and the foundation of
our modern civilization, and he was thus at once heir to the rich
treasures of a glorious past, and endowed with a poetic, or we might
say a prophetic insight that makes his works appeal as closely to the
readers of to-day as to those of his own time.
In the four leading European nations of the age--Italy, despite her
high rank in art, still lacked national unity--four sovereigns of
marked though widely diverse character and attainments reigned for a
considerable part of Shakespeare's life. Of the "Virgin Queen" we
scarcely need to write. The England of her day, and of later days,
would not have been what it was and what it became, without the aid of
her mingled shrewdness and prudence. Faults she had and shortcomings,
but, granted the almost overpowering difficulties she had to face,
both at home and abroad, it is doubtful whether a more decided, a more
straight-forward policy would have been as successful as the somewhat
devious one she pursued. Her chief rival, Philip II (1556-1598), as
much averse as Elizabeth herself to energetic action, even more fond
of procrastination, lacked her relative religious and political
tolerance, and left Spain weaker than he had found it. And still his
tenacity, his devotion to the cause he believed to be that of heaven,
his consistency, and even the gloomy seriousness of his life, testify
to a strong soul, though a thoroughly unlovable one.
The reign of the eccentric Rudolph II, Emperor of Germany (1576-1612),
whose imperial residence was at Prague, covers the greater part of
Shakespeare's life. In spite of many failings and mistakes, this
monarch did much to foster the study of the arts and sciences of his
age, so far as he was able to understand them. That he was for a time
the dupe of adventurers and alchemists, such as the half-visionary
John Dee and the altogether unscrupulous Edward Kelley, was no unusual
experience in those days, when the dividing line between true science
and charlatanism was too indistinctly marked to be easily discernible.
The greatest of all the sovereigns of Shakespeare's time was Henry IV
of France, unquestionably the greatest of French kings, despite the
fact that the primacy has often been accorded to the Roi Soleil, Louis
XIV. The powerful and ductile personality that was able to put an end
to the destructive religious wars of France and to lay a firm
foundation for the strongly-centralized power of a later time, a
foundation which the great statesman Richelieu broadened and deepened,
deserves all the credit that should be given to those who conquer the
first apparently insurmountable difficulties in the realization of a
great aim.
How brief was the reign of most of the popes of this time is shown by
the fact that no less than ten of them were at one time or other
Shakespeare's contemporaries, although the duration of his life was
but fifty-two years. Of these probably the most noteworthy was Gregory
XIII (1572-1585), in whose reign occurred the fearful Massacre of St.
Bartholomew, August 24, 1572, and the reform of the calendar from that
known as the Julian to the new style named the Gregorian Calendar in
honor of this pope.
In the East, just coming into closer commercial intercourse with
Europe, the long reign of the greatest of the Mogul emperors,
Jelal-ed-din Akbar (1556-1605), began two years before the accession
of Elizabeth and lasted two years after her death. Probably no
Oriental sovereign, certainly no Indian sovereign, ranks higher than
Akbar, who was at once a great statesman, an able organizer, and
singularly tolerant in religion. In Persia, one of the most marked
rulers of this land, Abbas the Great, began to reign in 1584 and died
in 1628.
In no period was jewelry worn more ornately, or with greater display,
we might almost say ostentation, than in the age of Shakespeare. As a
rule, in this period the precious stones were less considered than the
elaborate goldsmith work in which they were placed. They were the
adjuncts, rather than the principal glory of the jewel.
The court jeweller of James VI of Scotland and of this monarch after
his accession to the English throne, as James I, was George Heriot
(ca. 1563-1624), born in Edinburgh, the son of a member of the company
of goldsmiths in that city. As the Scotch goldsmiths cumulated the
profession of money-lending with that of goldsmithing, they were
usually persons of considerable account among the citizens. Heriot
became a member of the company in 1588, the year of the Spanish
Armada. Despite the rather straitened circumstances of the Scottish
court, considerable amounts were expended for jewels, especially as
the queen, Anne of Denmark, was very fond of display. The nobility
also, such of them at least as possessed the means, were inclined to
deck themselves out with brilliant jewels and splendid ornaments of
massive gold. Heriot's appointment as goldsmith to the queen dates
from 1597; soon after this he was made jeweller and goldsmith to the
king. He followed the court to London in 1603, when King James
succeeded to Elizabeth, and at the time of his death, February 12,
1624, had amassed the sum of £50,000 by his profitable connection
with the court, and had also acquired lands and houses at Rochampton,
in Surrey, and St. Martin's-in-the-Fields, London. His residuary
estate, which amounted to £23,625 ($118,125), he entrusted to the
provosts, bailiffs, ministers, and ordinary town-council of Edinburgh
for the erection of an institution to be called Heriot's Hospital,
where a number of poor freemen's sons of the town should be
educated.[18] This foundation still exists, and the excellent
management of those who have had to do with the endowment is shown by
the fact that the income it now produces equals the whole sum of the
original bequest.
[Footnote 18: William Hone, "The Every-Day Book", London, 1838, vol.
ii, cols. 748, 749.]
This great Scotch goldsmith fashioned a number of splendid rings for
the queen. An old account furnished by Heriot lists them as
follows:[19]
A ring with a heart and serpent, all set about with diamonds;
A ring with a single diamond, set in a heart betwixt two hands;
A great ring in the form of a perssed hand and a perssed eye, all
sett with diamonds;
One great ring, in forme of a frog, all set with diamonds, price
two-hundreth poundis;
A ring of a burning heart set with diamondis;
A ring in the forme af a scallope shell, set with a table diamond, and
opening on the head;
A ring of a love trophe set with diamondis;
Two rings, lyke black flowers, with a table diamond in each;
A daissie ring sett with a table diamond;
A ryng sett all over with diamondis, made in fashion of a lizard,
120 l.;
A ring set with 9 diamonds, and opening on the head with the King's
picture in that.
[Footnote 19: William Hone, "Every-Day Book", London, 1838, vol. ii,
cols. 749, 750.]
Heriot also lists a ring delivered about 1607 to Margaret Hartsyde,
one of the royal household, describing it as "sett all about with
diamondis, and a table diamond on the head"; that is, in the bezel. He
states that he had been given to understand that this was by direction
of Her Majesty. His precaution in making this note appears to have
been fully justified, for this Margaret Hartsyde was tried in
Edinburgh, May 31, 1608, on the charge of having purloined a pearl
belonging to the queen and valued at £110. Her excuse was that she had
taken this and other pearls to adorn dolls for the amusement of the
royal children, and that she did not expect the queen would ask for
them. As, however, it was brought out in the trial that she had
cleverly disguised some of the pearls she had taken, and had offered
to sell them to the queen, she was condemned to imprisonment in
Blackness Castle until the payment of a fine of £400, and to
confinement in Orkney during the remainder of her life. Eleven years
later, however, the king's advocate "produced a letter of
rehabilitation and restitution of Margaret Hartsyde to her fame".[20]
[Footnote 20: "Every-Day Book", _loc. cit_.]
In Shakespeare's day the "goldsmiths" were also jewellers and gem
dealers, and often money-lenders as well. The settings of the finest
precious stones were at that time generally of gold, rarely of silver.
Platinum, the metal that now enjoys the greatest furore for diamond
settings, was then unknown in Europe; it was first brought to Europe
in 1735, from South America, having been found in the alluvial
deposits of the river Pinto, in the district of Choco, now forming
part of the United States of Colombia. The Spaniards had named it
_platina_, from its resemblance to _plata_, silver. The
chief source in our time is Russia, the richest deposits being those
discovered in 1825, on the Iss, a tributary of the Tura, in the Urals.
Other valuable deposits are in the district of Nizhni-Tagilsk.
Platinum also occurs in Brazil, California, and British Columbia,
associated with gold, as well as in Borneo, New South Wales,
Australia, and in New Zealand. Its use in gem-mountings began about
1870, and from 1880 onward it has become more and more favored, until
now it has almost entirely superseded gold in the finest jewelry,
especially for diamond settings. Long before the metal was known and
used in Europe, ornamental use of it was made in South America, in the
district we have mentioned, the material not being fused, but simply
forged out of the nuggets found in the deposits.
That but few fine diamonds were in Europe when Shakespeare wrote has
already been noted; indeed, the annual importation from India, then
the only source, can hardly have exceeded $100,000 on an average,
while at the present day the value of the diamonds from the great
African mines imported into Europe and America amounts to from
$40,000,000 to $60,000,000 each year.
In King James's reign, besides Heriot, William Herrick (brother of
Nicolas) and John Spilman were appointed jewellers to the king, queen,
and prince, the annual emoluments being £50 annually. It is stated
that Herrick furnished jewels worth £36,000 to Queen Anne of Denmark.
Such of her many jewels as were to be found when she died are said to
have been left to her son, later Charles I, and none to her daughter
Elizabeth, later Queen of Bohemia and ancestress of many of the
sovereigns of Europe, as well as of the present reigning house in
England. Unfortunately for her heir, a great part of the jewels had
been embezzled, and could not be recovered, although models of many
had been carefully preserved by William Herrick, who swore that the
originals had been delivered to the queen. Less notable jewellers of
King James's day were Philip Jacobson, Arnold Lulls, John Acton, and
John Williams. One of them, Arnold Lulls, has left a fine set of
contemporary drawings representing jewels of the epoch; these are now
to be seen in the Victoria and Albert Museum, London. As an instance
of the value of some of the jewels of his design, it is recorded that
the sum of £1550 was paid for a diamond jewel with pearl pendants and
two dozen buttons, furnished to the king to be bestowed upon the
queen at the christening of the Princess Mary in 1605.[21]
[Illustration: Diamond cutter's shop, eighteenth century, in which the
diamond-cutting mill is operated by "man-power". Published in the
Universal Magazine of Knowledge and Pleasure, by John Hinton, England,
July, 1749]
[Footnote 21: H. Clifford Smith, "Jewellery", London, 1908, p. 302.]
While the jeweller's art in England was still under the influence of
foreign goldsmiths in Elizabeth's time, it had to a considerable
extent emancipated itself from foreign control in the latter part of
her reign and in that of her successor. In addition to George Heriot,
whom we have just noticed, several others are well worthy of mention,
such as Dericke Anthony, Affabel Partridge, Peter Trender, and Nicolas
Herrick,[22] the father of the poet Robert Herrick, who makes many a
telling use of the colors and charm of precious stones and pearls in
his dainty poems. To these must be added Sir John Spilman, of German
birth, who made many jewels at the royal command.
[Footnote 22: H. Clifford Smith, "Jewellery", London, 1908, pp. 219,
220, 301.]
We should remember that for the cutting of precious stones steam-power
was not then available, "man-power" being employed. A large turning
wheel was pushed around by a man holding a bar extending from it. The
motion of this large wheel was transmitted to other smaller ones. The
number of revolutions per minute hardly exceeded a few hundred, while
in modern times a speed of from 2000 to 2500 revolutions per minute
is attained. The diamond cutting industry was largely in the hands of
Jews in Lisbon.
The gem-cutting processes were not greatly modified for many years
after Shakespeare's death, so that a representation of the wheel and
mill used in 1750 gives a fairly good general idea of the _modus
operandi_. The large wooden wheel, whose axis is the second pillar
within the frame, is bent, and makes an elbow under the wheel to
receive the impulsion of a bar that serves instead of a turn-handle.
On the right side of the frame, where the boy stands, is the
turn-handle which sets the wheel in motion by means of the elbow of
its axis. So that if the wooden wheel be twenty times larger than the
iron one, a hundred turns of the larger wheel will cause a thousand
revolutions of the smaller one. The method of holding the diamond in
place over the iron wheel, when in motion, so that it presses upon the
latter and is polished thereby, is shown in the lower right-hand
corner of the plate.
The German traveller, Paul Hentzner, who visited England in 1598,
toward the end of Elizabeth's life, describes her jewelling in the
following words:
"The Queen had in her ears two pearls with very rich drops; she
wore false hair and that red; upon her head she had a small crown; her
bosom was uncovered, and she had on a necklace of exceedingly fine
jewels. She was dressed in white silk, bordered with pearls of the
size of beans, and over it a mantle of black silk shot with silver
threads; her train was very long. Instead of a chain, she had an
oblong collar of gold and jewels".
[Illustration: FROM A PORTRAIT OF QUEEN ELIZABETH In the possession of
his Grace the Duke of Devonshire, K.G., Hardwick Hall. The queen has
jewels in her hair, a pearl eardrop, and two necklaces, one fitting
closely to the neck, the other falling over the breast. The stiff
brocade skirt is embroidered with a wonderful array of aquatic birds
and animals. On the left, the cushion of the chair of state is
embroidered with the queen's monogram. Surmounting the chair is a
crystal ball. The original canvas measures 90 x 66 inches.]
In addition to this display the traveller tells us that the queen's
right hand was fairly sparkling with jewelled rings.
Aside from his portrayal of jewels in his numerous portraits, Holbein
ranked as the master designer of jewels in his day. Many of the finest
of these designs have been preserved for us and can be seen in the
British Museum, to which they were bequeathed by Sir Hans Sloane in
1753. There are 179 separate pieces, usually pen-and-ink sketches. The
execution of the jewels from these designs is believed to have been
mainly done by Hans of Antwerp, known as Hans Anwarpe, a friend of
Holbein, who settled in London in 1514, and was appointed goldsmith to
King Henry VIII, for whom he produced many jewels for New Year's
gifts.[23]
[Footnote 23: H. Clifford Smith, "Jewellery", London [1908], pp. 211,
213.]
In judging of the jewels figured in portraits we must remember that
the artist has often modified them to bring them into greater harmony
with their immediate surroundings. This, in some cases, may lead him
to make of a somewhat inartistically designed jewel a beautifully
proportioned one. Again, he may be led to exaggerate the size of the
precious stones or pearls, and to intensify or deepen their colors. A
recent instance regards a portrait of the former queen of Spain by one
of the foremost Spanish artists of our day. The royal lady was
depicted wearing an enormous pearl; however, the artist informed the
author that the real pearl was much smaller than the painted one, but
that, in portraying it, a better decorative effect was obtained by
increasing its size. Whether Holbein (1497-1543), with his Dutch
exactness of portrayal, was led into any similar exaggerations we can
never tell, as little as we can know anything definite regarding the
true size of the jewels shown in the portraits by the Italian Zucchero
(1529-1566), the Fleming Lucas de Heere (1524-1584), or by any other
of the portrait painters of Elizabeth's time.
In a very modest way the addition of gilded scarf-pins, brooches,
chains, etc., not owned by the sitters, was not uncommonly practised
thirty or forty years ago, when colored tintypes were popular. These
were painted on the photographs, much to the gratification of those
who ordered them for distribution among their friends.
The court-jewellers of France in Shakespeare's day rivalled, though
they did not excel, those of England. Among them a prominent place
belongs to Francois Dujardin (or Desjardin), goldsmith of Charles IX
(1560-1574) and Henri III (1574-1589). When a verification and an
inventory of the French Crown Jewels were made on August 1, 1574,
after the death of Charles IX, the expert examination was entrusted to
François Dujardin, who is termed "orfebvre et lapidaire du Roy". The
goldsmith's art was passed down from father to son in this family: a
second F. Dujardin (b. ca. 1565) mounted the parures made for
Elizabeth of Austria, daughter of Henri IV and Maria de' Medici. In
the reign of Henri IV and the succeeding regency of Maria de' Medici,
Josse de Langerac, received as master goldsmith in 1594, and the
brothers Rogier, are noted as leading goldsmiths who, besides
executing many fine jewels, frequently made loans of money to the
Queen Regent, and seem to have experienced great difficulty in
securing full payment. Corneille Rogier set the jewels worn at her
marriage by Anne d'Autriche, wife of Louis XIII. Two brothers, each
bearing the name Pierre Courtois, are also noted in old records. One
of them, at the time of his death, in 1611, occupied two apartments
with two shops in the Louvre; the shop of the other had the sign "Aux
Trois Roys", probably referring to the "Three Kings of the East", the
Magi of the Gospel, very appropriate patrons for goldsmiths.[24]
[Footnote 24: Germain Bapst, "Histoire des Joyaux de la Couronne de
France", Paris, 1889, pp. 175, 176, 300, 304.]
Thierry Badouer, a German goldsmith-jeweller, received from the French
court, in 1572, an order for 250,000 crowns' worth of jewels to be
distributed as gifts at the approaching marriage of Henri de Navarre
with Marguerite de Valois. He faithfully executed his part of the task
and brought the jewels with him to Paris, but before he had been able
to deliver them to the Royal Treasury they were stolen from him during
the confusion of the St. Bartholomew Massacre. Eventually, in the
reign of Henri IV, his widow was partly reimbursed for the loss,
receiving one-quarter of the amount of her claim.[25] After the
Massacre of St. Bartholomew, and as a result of it, many Protestants
and Catholics left France for Hanau, Germany, where to this day they
carry on the jeweller's art; and from this beginning Hanau became a
jeweller's centre.
[Footnote 25: Op. cit., p. 289.]
The best reproduction of the First Folio of 1623 is the photographic
facsimile, made in 1902, of the copy formerly owned by the Duke of
Devonshire and now in the possession of Henry E. Huntington, of New
York.[26] The original Folio, prepared by the managers of
Shakespeare's company, John Heminge and Henry Condell, bears the
imprint of Isaac Jaggard and Edward Blount, the printing house being
conducted by William Jaggard and his son Isaac. It is believed that an
edition of five hundred copies was issued, at one pound per copy. That
the publication was essentially a commercial venture, although it may
also have been a labor of love for some of the editors, is brought out
clearly and quaintly in the preface addressed to "The great Variety
of Readers", and signed by Heminge and Condell. This reads that the
book was printed at the charges of W. Jaggard, Ed. Blount, I.
Southweeke, and W. Apsley, 1623. The following passage from the
preface is well worth quoting, its spirit is so delightfully modern:
The fate of all Bookes depends upon your capacities,
and not of your heads alone, but of your purses. Well!
It is now publique, & you wil stand for your priviledges,
wee know: to read, and censure.[27] Do so, but buy it
first. That doth best commend a Booke the Stationer
sales. Then, how odde soever your braines be, or your
wisdomes, make your license the same and spare not.... But
whatever you do, Buy. Censure will not drive a
Trade, nor make the Jacke go.
[Footnote 26: "Shakespeares Comedies, Histories, & Tragedies, being a
reproduction in facsimile of the First Folio Edition of 1623, from the
Chatsworth copy in the possession of the Duke of Devonshire, K.G.,
with introduction and censure of copies by Sidney Lee". Oxford,
Clarendon Press, 1902, XXXV 908 pp. Edition limited to 1000 numbered
and signed copies.]
[Footnote 27: Judge.]
The chief credit for bringing together the materials for the First
Folio, in 1623, is believed to be due to William Jaggard. Some ten
years earlier he had acquired the printing-privileges of certain of
the quartos. Edward Blount, whose name appears as publisher on the
title page with that of Isaac Jaggard, was merely a stationer, so that
the actual printing was solely under the charge of the latter, who
seems, at this time, to have been entrusted with this department of
the business. However, Blount's services may have been valuable since
he had better literary taste than the Jaggards possessed.
In spite of certain evident faults of proportion, the portrait of
Shakespeare engraved by Martin Droeshout for the title page of the
1623 Folio bears internal evidence of being a fairly good likeness,
for the face possesses a marked individuality. There is a belief that
it was taken from the so-called "Flower" portrait, now in the
Shakespeare Memorial Gallery at Stratford-upon-Avon, and which is
conjectured to have been painted in 1609, at least during
Shakespeare's lifetime, possibly by another Martin Droeshout, a
Fleming, uncle of the engraver of the same name. This portrait was
discovered, painted on a panel at Peckham Rye, bearing the inscription
"Will Shakespeare^n, 1609". That it should be the original from which
the Droeshout engraving was taken has been doubted, since it appears
rather to resemble later states of the plate than earlier ones. While
Ben Jonson, who had seen Shakespeare so often, may have been partly
moved to bestow undue praise upon the Folio portrait, in the lines he
furnished the publishers to be placed immediately facing it, by his
wish to say a good word for their publication, he would scarcely have
made use of such superlative terms had he not considered it to be at
least a fairly good likeness. Jonson's lines have been so often
printed that few are unacquainted with them, but as illustrating the
above remarks they can be repeated here, in the old spelling and form
of the First Folio:
TO THE READER.
This Figure, that thou here seest put,
It was for gentle Shakespeare cut;
Wherein the Graver has a strife
With Nature, to out-doo 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 write in brasse.
But, since he cannot, Reader, looke
Not on his Picture, but his Booke.
B.I.