Shakespeare and Precious Stones Part 4

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 princ.i.p.al 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 c.u.mulated 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 circ.u.mstances of the Scottish court, considerable amounts were expended for jewels, especially as the queen, Anne of Denmark, was very fond of display. The n.o.bility also, such of them at least as possessed the means, were inclined to deck themselves out with brilliant jewels and splendid ornaments of ma.s.sive 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 ama.s.sed 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 inst.i.tution 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 sh.e.l.l, 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 amus.e.m.e.nt 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 rest.i.tution 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, a.s.sociated 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 b.u.t.tons, furnished to the king to be bestowed upon the queen at the christening of the Princess Mary in 1605.[21]

[Ill.u.s.tration: 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 emanc.i.p.ated 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".

[Ill.u.s.tration: 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 Francois Dujardin, who is termed "orfebvre et lapidaire du Roy". The goldsmith's art was pa.s.sed 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 Ma.s.sacre. 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 Ma.s.sacre 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 pa.s.sage 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, x.x.xV 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 t.i.tle 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.