embellishing his ideas by the most apposite illustrations. Unfortunately, however, these have, hitherto, been frequently lost sight of through the reader’s unacquaintance with that extensive field of folk-lore which was so well known to the poet. For the sake of easy reference, the birds with which the present chapter deals are arranged alphabetically.
Barnacle-Goose. There was a curious notion, very prevalent in former times, that this bird (Anser bernicla) was generated from the barnacle (Lepas anatifera), a shell-fish, growing on a flexible stem, and adhering to loose timber, bottoms of ships, etc., a metamorphosis to which Shakespeare alludes in “The Tempest” (iv. 1), where he makes Caliban say:
“we shall lose our time,
And all be turn’d to barnacles.”
This vulgar error, no doubt, originated in mistaking the fleshy peduncle of the shell-fish for the neck of a goose, the shell for its head, and the tentacula for a tuft of feathers. These shell-fish, therefore, bearing, as seen out of the water, a resemblance to the goose’s neck, were ignorantly, and without investigation, confounded with geese themselves. In France, the barnacle-goose may be eaten on fast days, by virtue of this old belief in its fishy origin.151 Like other fictions this one had its variations,152 for sometime the barnacles were supposed to grow on trees, and thence to drop into the sea, and become geese, as in Drayton’s account of Furness (“Polyolb.” 1622, song 27, l. 1190). As early as the 12th century this idea153 was promulgated by Giraldus Cambrensis in his “Topographia Hiberniæ.” Gerarde, who in the year 1597 published his “Herball, or Generall Historie of Plantes,” narrates the following: “There are found in the north parts of Scotland, and the isles adjacent called Orcades, certain trees, whereon do grow certain shell-fishes, of a white color, tending to russet, wherein are contained little living creatures; which shells in time of maturity do open, and out of them grow those little living things which, falling into the water, do become fowls, whom we call barnacles, in the north of England brant geese, and in Lancashire tree geese; but the others that do fall upon the land perish, and do come to nothing. Thus much of the writings of others, and also from the mouths of people of those parts, which may very well accord with truth. But what our eyes have seen and hands have touched, we shall declare. There is a small island in Lancashire called the Pile of Foulders, wherein are found the broken pieces of old ships, some whereof have been cast thither by shipwreck, and also the trunks or bodies, with the branches, of old rotten trees, cast up there likewise, whereon is found a certain spume or froth, that in time breedeth into certain shells, in shape like those of the mussel, but sharper pointed, and of a whitish color: wherein is contained a thing in form like a lace of silk, one end whereof is fastened unto the inside of the shell, even as the fish of oysters and mussels are. The other end is made fast unto the belly of a rude mass or lump, which in time cometh to the shape and form of a bird; when it is perfectly formed the shell gapeth open, and the first thing that appeareth is the foresaid lace or string; next come the legs of the bird hanging out, and as it groweth greater it openeth the shell by degrees, till at length it is all come forth and hangeth only by the bill. In short space after it cometh to full maturity, and falleth into the sea, where it gathereth feathers and groweth to a fowl, bigger than a mallard, and lesser than a goose; having black legs and bill, or beak, and feathers black and white, spotted in such a manner as is our magpie, which the people of Lancashire call by no other name than a tree goose.” An interesting cut of these birds so growing is given by Mr. Halliwell-Phillipps from a manuscript of the 14th century, who is of opinion that the barnacle mentioned by Caliban was the tree-goose. It is not to be supposed, however, that there were none who doubted this marvellous story, or who took steps to refute it. Belon, so long ago as 1551, says Mr. Harting,154 and others after him, treated it with ridicule, and a refutation may be found in Willughby’s “Ornithology,” which was edited by Ray in 1678.155 This vulgar error is mentioned by many of the old writers. Thus Bishop Hall, in his “Virgidemiarum” (lib. iv. sat. 2), says:
“The Scottish barnacle, if I might choose,
That of a worme doth waxe a winged goose.”
Butler, too, in his “Hudibras” (III. ii. l. 655), speaks of it; and Marston, in his “Malecontent” (1604), has the following: “Like your Scotch barnacle, now a block, instantly a worm, and presently a great goose.”
Blackbird. This favorite is called, in the “Midsummer-Night’s Dream” (iii. 1) an ousel (old French, oisel), a term still used in the neighborhood of Leeds:
“The ousel cock, so black of hue,
With orange-tawny bill.”
In “2 Henry IV.” (iii. 2) when Justice Shallow inquires of Justice Silence, “And how doth my cousin?” he is answered: “Alas, a black ousel,156 cousin Shallow,” a phrase which, no doubt, corresponded to our modern one, “a black sheep.” In Spenser’s “Epithalamium” (l. 82), the word occurs:
“The ousel shrills, the ruddock warbles soft.”
Buzzard. Mr. Staunton suggests that in the following passage of the “Taming of the Shrew” (ii. 1) a play is intended upon the words, and that in the second line “buzzard” means a beetle, from its peculiar buzzing noise:
“Pet. O slow-wing’d turtle! shall a buzzard take thee?
Kath. Ay, for a turtle, as he takes a buzzard.”
The beetle was formerly called a buzzard; and in Staffordshire, a cockchafer is termed a hum-buz. In Northamptonshire we find a proverb, “I’m between a hawk and a buzzard,” which means, “I don’t know what to do, or how to act.”157
Chaffinch. Some think that this bird is alluded to in the song in the “Midsummer-Night’s Dream” (iii. 1), where the expression “finch” is used; the chaffinch having always been a favorite cage-bird with the lower classes.158 In “Troilus and Cressida” (v. 1) Thersites calls Patroclus a “finch-egg,” which was evidently meant as a term of reproach. Others, again, consider the phrase as equivalent to coxcomb.
Chough. In using this word Shakespeare probably, in most cases, meant the jackdaw;159 for in “A Midsummer-Night’s Dream” (iii. 2) he says:
“russet-pated choughs, many in sort,
Rising and cawing at the gun’s report;”
the term russet-pated being applicable to the jackdaw, but not to the real chough. In “1 Henry IV.” (v. 1). Prince Henry calls Falstaff chewet– “Peace, chewet, peace” – in allusion, no doubt, to the chough or jackdaw, for common birds have always had a variety of names.160 Such an appellation would be a proper reproach to Falstaff, for his meddling and impertinent talk. Steevens and Malone, however, finding that chewets were little round pies made of minced meat, thought that the Prince compared Falstaff, for his unseasonable chattering, to a minced pie. Cotgrave161 describes the French chouette as an owlet; also, a “chough,” which many consider to be the simple and satisfactory explanation of chewet. Belon, in his “History of Birds” (Paris, 1855), speaks of the chouette as the smallest kind of chough or crow. Again, in “1 Henry IV.” (ii. 2), in the amusing scene where Falstaff, with the Prince and Poins, meet to rob the travellers at Gadshill, Falstaff calls the victims “fat chuffs,” probably, says Mr. Harting, who connects the word with chough, from their
See Harland and Wilkinson’s “Lancashire Folk-Lore,” 1867, pp. 116-121; “Notes and Queries,” 1st series, vol. viii. p. 224; “Penny Cyclopædia,” vol. vii. p. 206, article “Cirripeda.”
Nares’s “Glossary,” 1872, vol. i. p. 56.
See Harting’s “Ornithology of Shakespeare,” 1871, pp. 246-257.
“Ornithology of Shakespeare,” 1871, p. 252.
See “Philosophical Transactions” for 1835; Darwin’s “Monograph of the Cirrhipedia,” published by the Ray Society; a paper by Sir J. Emerson Tennent in “Notes and Queries,” 1st series, vol. viii. p. 223; Brand’s “Popular Antiquities,” 1849, vol. iii. pp. 361, 362; Douce’s “Illustrations of Shakespeare,” 1839, p. 14.
See Yarrell’s “History of British Birds,” 2d edition, vol. i. p. 218; “Dialect of Leeds,” 1862, p. 329. In “Hamlet” (iii. 2), some modern editions read “ouzle;” the old editions all have
Miss Baker’s “Northamptonshire Glossary,” 1854, vol. i. p. 94. See Nares’s “Glossary,” 1872, vol. i. p. 124; and “Richard III.,” i. 1.
Harting’s “Ornithology of Shakespeare,” p. 144; Halliwell-Phillipps’s “Handbook Index to Shakespeare,” 1866, p. 187. The term finch, also, according to some, may mean either the bullfinch or goldfinch.
See Yarrell’s “History of British Birds,” 2d edition, vol. ii. p. 58.
Nares’s “Glossary,” vol. i. p. 156; Singer’s “Shakespeare,” 1875, vol. v. p. 115; Dyce’s “Glossary,” 1876, p. 77.
Mr. Dyce says that if Dr. Latham had been acquainted with the article “Chouette,” in Cotgrave, he would not probably have suggested that Shakespeare meant here the lapwing or pewit. Some consider the magpie is meant. See Halliwell-Phillipps’s “Handbook Index to Shakespeare,” 1866, p. 83. Professor Newton would read “russet-patted,” or “red-legged,” thinking that Shakespeare meant the chough.
