The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1895-02-03
BLUNDERs OF THE BARD.
sHAKEsPEARE KNEW VERY LIT
TIE OF NATURAL HISTORY.

Most of His Knowledge of birds and
Beasts Was Obtained From the
Books OF Others, and. Ignoring n
Large Part OF the Animal King
dom. He III-TreatS such Animals
"a He Sets ont to Describe, 80 the
Critics Say.
From the English Quarterly Review.
Shakespeare has been called sternly to
account for his shortcomings in the mat
ter of ornithology in two works. entitled
THE Ornithology Of Shakespeare and
Natural History of Insects Mentioned in
Shakespeare's Plays" The little mistakes
by the great poet are revealed by careful
study, according 10 modern scientific
methods, prove very interesting reading.
II It were not for the momentous effect
that Shakespeare's handling Of animated
nature has had on all succeeding poetry,
and for the noisy championship of these
who have misrepresented him with such
industry that we are in danger Of losing
sight OF the real man in the pretended
scientist, this aspect Of shakespeare's
intellect might have been left, as DIT.
Johnson left Il, to silent and respectful
acqulescence. As it is. poetry has sung
of nature on shakespeare's lines with an
extraordinary fidelity A hundred poets
say hardly more than one, each repeating
after the other the preiudices of antiquity
the misleading of Holy Writ, the absurd
tiles OF medieval heraldry, and a folk
lore that was ancient before Chaucer.
Because. in the midst of a remote past,
a poet said a vulture gnawed Promethe-
us liver, the vulture has been gnawing
liver ever since; the lion. for such is the
disposition Of the beast" scorns to hurt
the weak, and generously seeks out an
equal or superior foe; the toad, but for
the jewel in its head, remains utterly
abomlnable and venomous; the "fendlsh'
owl and fatal raven exult over mans
disasters; the ostrich is still formed of
God without a parents mind the female
nightingale, leaving her eggs to addle,
sings all night Ions about having her
tongue cut OUT and so on, with the
"death-dlvining' swan, the "chaste'
turtle, the blind mole, and wicked bat
the bear with, unlocked cubs, and ass
fortunate in having 50 thick skin to
EH
the rest of the poets fauna
The poetical procedure of neglecting
four-hfths of animated nature and i'll
treating four-ffths of the remainder can,
Of course, be apologized for by the priv
ilege of poetic license. In that case the
license is simply the privilege of being
unsympathetic, which is unbecomng in
poets, so that the procedure OF mlsrep-
resentation and neglect stands formally
| judged and condemned by the apologists
themselves. Or II may be contended
that it is unfair to expect all poets to
be biologists Certainly, Just as it would
be prepcsterous to expect them to Job
serve" birds and beasts from the tax
| idermists or poulterers point of view.
And cases are to hand of to much science
spelling the poetry, as in Darwin or
Drayton or Montgomery
On the other hand, If we examine, say
Chaucer, Spenser. Milton, Keats, or Shell
ley, we find that every sympathetic
touch of real nature adds a vivid beauty
to the line, just as in a score or Two of
seventeenth and eighteenth century poets
we find their lines are without life or
charm; because Of their artifcihlity. Ger
tainly there is no necessity for a poet
to be a naturalist in order to be true
to nature, but there is the most urgent
necessity that he should be in sympathy
with nature and ready to acknowledge
the good and beautiful even if it should
approach him in such questionable shape
as the deadly owle," or "a full-blown
toad that venom spits." It were an alb
surd pretension that poets should study
zoology before they begin to write, but
it is surely the poetry that becomes alb
surd when writer's, because bird of para
disc, being legless,'' slept upon the wing,
go on to make it lay it's eggs on the wing
and hatch them; or; when the porcuplne.
said to shoot it's quilts at it's assailants,
I al.
ing; or when they describe themselves as
being enraptured at seeing an azure king
fisher feasting on amber berries, or at
hearing sea gulls ''warbling" on the
main. or as being shocked at beholding
a cruel yulture Spring from the cliff
upon the passing dove"
In many cases the treatment amounts
to cruelty What does the otter do that
it should be so universally abused? 1t
catches fish. What does the angler do
that he should be so universally patted on
the back? He catches fish. Now, can
poets justify any distinction between the
two as affecting pitifulness for the fish?
or, if they must make a distinction why is
it not In favor Of the otter that kills from
necessity, instead of the angler who kills
''for the fun of the thing?" Yet when
the otter kills fish, the poets are up In arms
for the poor fish; when the angler does
the same, they sneer and giggle at the
man wants to eat himself, so the otter is
anathema. .rt
Or the fox. This truly charming little
beast, which the rich encourage to love
among their farmyards and to multiply for
their sport, is habitually an object of de-
testatfon to poets. 1t is ruthless"
"gaunt," "nnxious,'' wicked" false"
greedy" '.stinking," "obscene," wa
grant, d" ''scoundrel fox, " "felon,' "knave,"
VILLAIN" nightly robber" 'abhored alive,
more loathsome still when deadr' Why
should there be all this pother? why?
Because he has taken a chicken home to
feed his cubs and their sucking mother
But chickens are property of man. so
the poet exults over the destruction of the
fox, revels in it's horrible death, and ap-
pIauds the fox-hunters-as If they hunted
the fox because they wished to kill it for
eating chiekensl-for their exploit Why
is the tiger, again. so utterly abominable
for doing that which the lion does "by
sovereignty of nature?" Their lives and
objects are alike.
Upon mere assumption. it has come to
be accepted as facts beyond dispute that
Shakespeare was singularly exact in his
natural history, and that his knowledge
was the result of personal observation.