A rarely noted source for some of Shakespeare's knowledge regarding curious customs has been sought in the rambling treatise on heraldry written by Gerard Legh and issued, in 1564, under the title: "Accedens of Armorie" (approximately, Introduction to Heraldry). This is cast in the form of a dialogue between Gerard the Herehaught (Herold) and the Caligat Knight, the latter term designating an inferior kind of knight with no claim to nobility; indeed, an old writer renders it "a souldior on foot". The writer manages to weave in much material slightly or not at all connected with his main theme. Legh was the son of a Fleet Street draper. He seems to have studied a variety of subjects and gathered together many scraps of curious information. He died of the plague, October 13, 1563. His book went through several editions during Shakespeare's lifetime. Following the first edition of 1562 came successive ones in 1576, 1591, 1597, and one bearing the imprint of J. Jaggard in 1616. The author is believed to have been intentionally obscure in his treatment of heraldic questions lest he might earn the ill-will of the College of Arms by violating certain of their privileges.

While both Shakespeare and his great contemporary Cervantes died on April 23 of the year 1616, it strangely happens that Cervantes had been dead ten days when Shakespeare expired. This apparent paradox is due to the fact that while in Spain the Gregorian calendar had already been introduced, the "Old Style", or Julian reckoning, was still used in England; indeed, it was not totally abandoned until 1752, in the reign of George II, 170 years after the first use of the Gregorian reckoning on the Continent. In the seventeenth century the error to be corrected amounted to ten days, so that Shakespeare's death, under the New Style, occurred on May 3, while Cervantes died on April 13 of the Old Style.

In commemoration of the Tercentenary of Shakespeare's death, the Shakespearean scholar, Miss H.C. Bartlett, prepared for the New York Public Library an exhibition of Shakespearean books, including all the early editions of the quartos; the various editions of the folios; the works of contemporaneous authors whom Shakespeare had consulted; and also the early works that mention Shakespeare, or cite from his plays or poems, including Greene's "Groat's Worth of Wit", published in 1592 by Henry Chettle and containing the earliest printed allusion to Shakespeare under the name of "Shake-scene".

One of the contemporary books containing citations from Shakespeare's works, shown at the New York Public Library, is "The Woman Hater", by Francis Beaumont (?1585-1615 or 1616), printed in 1607. [11] The citation, from Hamlet, Act i, sc. 5, [12] is apropos of the disappearance of a "fish head". It is put into the mouths of two of the characters, as follows:

Lazarello. Speak, I am bound to hear. Count. So art thou to revenge when thou shalt hear.

In the spacious hall of the beautiful Hispanic Museum in New York City there has recently been displayed, in commemoration of the tercentenary of Cervantes's death, an exceptionally fine collection of editions of his works and of rare plates illustrating episodes from them. Notable among the books was a first edition of his earliest published poems, four redondillas, a copla and an elegy, on the death, October 3, 1568, of Elizabeth de Valois, third wife of Philip II, and sister of Charles IX of France. [13] Dark rumors were afloat for some time that she had been poisoned by order of her husband. Among the other treasures in the Hispanic Museum exhibition was the earliest imprint of Cervantes's masterpiece, the immortal "Don Quixote". This was printed in Madrid, in 1605, by Juan de la Cuesta.

A rather attractive bit of verse, purporting to have been written by Shakespeare and dedicated to the woman who became his wife in 1582, when he was but eighteen years old (she was eight years his senior), alludes in its third stanza to "the orient list" of gems, diamond, topaz, amethyst, emerald, and ruby. This little poem, with its play upon the lady-love's name, can find a place here, although many readers are already familiar with it.

TO THE IDOL OF MINE EYES AND THE DELIGHT OF MINE HEART,

ANNE HATHAWAY

Would ye be taught, ye feathered throng, With love's sweet notes to grace your song, To pierce the heart with thrilling lay, Listen to mine Anne Hathaway! She hath a way to sing so clear, Phœbus might wond'ring stop to hear; To melt the sad, make blithe the gay, And nature charm, Anne hath a way: She hath a way, Anne Hathaway, To breathe delight Anne hath a way.

When envy's breath and rancorous tooth Do soil and bite fair worth and truth, And merit to distress betray, To soothe the heart Anne hath a way; She hath a way to chase despair, To heal all grief, to cure all care, Turn foulest night to fairest day: Thou know'st, fond heart, Anne hath a way, She hath a way, Anne Hathaway, To make grief bliss Anne hath a way.

Talk not of gems, the orient list, The diamond, topaz, amethyst, The emerald mild, the ruby gay; Talk of my gem, Anne Hathaway! She hath a way, with her bright eye, Their various lustre to defy, The jewel she and the foil they, So sweet to look Anne hath a way. She hath a way, Anne Hathaway, To make grief bliss Anne hath a way.

But were it to my fancy given To rate her charms, I'd call them Heaven; For though a mortal made of clay, Angels must love Anne Hathaway. She hath a way so to control To rupture the imprisoned soul, And sweetest Heaven on earth display, That to be Heaven Anne hath a way! She hath a way, Anne Hathaway, To be Heaven's self Anne hath a way.

This little poem is by Charles Dibdin (1748-1814), the writer of about 1200 sea-songs, at one time great favorites with sailors. It appeared, in 1792, in his long-forgotten novel, "Hannah Hewit, or the Female Crusoe", and Sir Sidney Lee conjectures that it may have been composed on the occasion of the Stratford jubilee of 1769, in the organization of which Dibdin aided the great actor, David Garrick. In the "Poems of Places", New York, 1877, edited by Henry W. Longfellow, this poem is assigned to Shakespeare on the strength of a persistent popular error. [14] In his "Life" Dibdin says: "My songs have been the solace of sailors in their long voyages, in storms, in battle; and they have been quoted in mutinies to the restoration of order and discipline". It has been asserted that they brought more men into the navy than all the press gangs could do.

The poem has sometimes been attributed to Edmund Falconer (1814-1879), an actor and dramatist, born in Dublin, and whose real name was Edmund O'Rourke. However, his poem entitled "Anne Hathaway, A Traditionary Ballad sung to a Day Dreamer by the Mummers of Shottery Brook", [15] falls far below the lines we have quoted in poetic quality, as may be seen from the opening stanza (the best), which runs as follows:

No beard on thy chin, but a fire in thine eye, With lustiest Manhood's in passion to vie, A stripling in form, with a tongue that can make The oldest folks listen, maids sweethearts forsake, Hie over the fields at the first blush of May, And give thy boy's heart unto Anne Hathaway.

In none of the allusions to precious stones made by Shakespeare is there any indication that he had in mind any of the Biblical passages treating of gems. The most notable of these are the enumeration of the twelve stones in Aaron's breast-plate (Exodus xxviii, 17-20; xxxix, 10-13), the list of the foundation stones and gates of the New Jerusalem given by John in Revelation (xxi, 19-21), and the description of the Tyrian king's "covering" in Ezekiel (xxviii, 130). Had the poet given any particular attention to these texts we could scarcely fail to note the fact. Other Bible mentions, such as those elsewhere made by Ezekiel (xxvii, 16, 22), regarding the trade of Tyre, the agates (and coral) from Syria, and the precious stones brought by the Arabian or Syrian merchants of Sheba and Raamah, are too much generalized to invite any special notice. The same may be said of most of the remaining brief allusions. We might rather expect that where the color or brilliancy of a precious stone is used as a simile this might strike a poet's fancy and perhaps find direct expression in his own words. The light of the New Jerusalem is likened to "a jasper stone, clear as crystal" (Rev. xxi, 11), and in Exodus (xxiv, 10) the sapphire stone is said to be "as it were the body of heaven in its clearness". However, that Shakespeare wrote of "the heaven-hued sapphire" ("Lover's Complaint", l. 215) has no necessary connection with this, as the celestial hue of the beautiful sapphire is spoken of time and again by many of the older writers.

FIVE OF THE SIX AUTHENTIC SHAKESPEARE SIGNATURES

Signature on the purchase deed of Shakespeare's house in Blackfriars
dated March 10 1613. In the Guildhall, London.

Signatures on the three pages of
Shakespeare's will executed March 25, 1616. Original in Somerset House, London.

Signature attached to the deed mortgaging the house in Blackfriars, dated March 11, 1613. In the British Museum.

It should be borne in mind that the great English translation of the Bible, popularly called "King James' Bible", was published only after Shakespeare had completed his last play in 1611. Before that time, dating from Tyndale's version of 1525, and in great measure based on it, a number of English translations had appeared, the most authoritative in Shakspeare's time being perhaps the "Bishops' Bible", printed under the patronage of Queen Elizabeth in 1568, and edited by the Archbishop of Canterbury.

The Geneva Bible of 1560, the first entire Bible in English in which the division into chapters and verses was carried out, had, however, the widest dissemination in Shakespeare's time, and a careful study of passages in his works referable to Biblical texts appears to prove that this version was the one with which he was most familiar. His plays testify to his close knowledge of the Scriptures, although no writer is less fettered by purely doctrinal considerations. The Geneva Bible went through no less than sixty editions in Queen Elizabeth's reign, and even after the issue of the "Authorized Version" in 1611 it competed successfully with this for a time.

That Shakespeare may have seen Philemon Holland's (1552-1637) excellent translation of Pliny is nowise unlikely. A notable passage in his Othello seems in any case to indicate that it was suggested by Pliny's words (Bk. II, chap. 97, in Holland's version):

Othello replies thus to Iago's conjecture that he may change his mind (Act iii, sc. 3):

Never, Iago. Like to the Pontic sea, Whose icy current and compulsive course Ne'er feels retiring ebb, but keeps due on To the Propontic and the Hellespont, Even so my bloody thoughts, with violent pace, Shall ne'er look back, ne'er ebb to humble love. First Folio, "Tragedies", p. 326, col. B, lines 34-39.

There is, however, no trace of any familiarity on Shakespeare's part with the precious stone lore of the Roman encyclopædist, either from the Latin text of his great "Historia Naturalis", or from the translation published by Holland in 1601. This translator, who Englished many of the chief Latin and Greek authors, Suetonius, Livy, Ammianus Marcellinus, Plutarch's "Morals" and other works, was pronounced by Fuller, in his "Worthies", to be "translator general in his age", adding that "these books alone of his turning into English will make a country gentleman a competent library". For his Ammianus Marcellinus the Council of Coventry, his place of residence, paid him £4, and £5 for a translation of Camden's "Britannia"—small sums, indeed, for so much labor, but not so unreasonable when we think that a half-century later the immortal Milton got but £5 for his "Paradise Lost". He was a Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, where he had studied and graduated; later he studied medicine, receiving a degree of M.D., not from Oxford or Cambridge, however, but either from a Scottish or foreign university.

Although Solinus, writing in the third century A.D., relies mainly upon Pliny for his information on precious stones, still he here and there gives evidence of a more critical spirit, as when he says of the rock-crystal that the theory according to which it was frozen and hardened water was necessarily incorrect, for it was to be found in such mild climates as "Alabanda in Asia and the island of Cyprus". [16] This is the more notable that the wholly incorrect view persisted into the sixteenth century, so learned a writer as Lord Bacon (d. 1626) restating it in his last work, "Sylva Sylvarum".

One of the most curious gem-treatises, especially as a source of early sixteenth-century beliefs in the magic properties of precious stones, the "Speculum Lapidum" of Camillo Leonardo, published in Venice, 1502, probably never came under Shakespeare's eye. Indeed, even in Italy it seems to have been so neglected that Ludovico Dolci ventured to publish a literal Italian version of the Latin original as his own work in 1565. The English "Mirror of Stones", issued in 1750, is frankly stated to be a translation of the Latin original bearing the same name. [17]

In Marlowe's (1564-1593) "Hero and Leander", almost certainly written before Shakespeare's "Venus and Adonis" (1593), although not published until 1598, five years after Marlowe's death, "pearl tears" and the "sparkling diamond" are used much in the same way as by Shakespeare, as appears in the following verses:

Forth from those two translucent cisterns brake A stream of liquid pearl, which down her face Made milk-white paths. Lines 296-298.

Why should you worship her! her you surpass As much as sparkling diamonds flaring glass. Lines 213,214.

There is a curious parallelism between a passage in Troilus and Cressida, 1609, and one in Marlowe's Dr. Faustus, 1588. Marlowe wrote (sc. 14, l. 83):

Was this the face that launched a thousand ships And burnt the topless towers of Ilium?

This is followed very closely by Shakespeare, with the substitution of "pearl" for "face".

She [Helen] is a pearl, 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.

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.

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]

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]

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

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.

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".

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 embroideredwith 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 90x66 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]

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]

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.