nn
n
n As John James Audubon made his way back home tonAmerica, where George Ord and his Philadelphians were busy picking over his Birdsnof America, their criticism of him crossed the Atlantic in the otherndirection, where Charles Waterton picked it up and launched an anti-Audubonncampaign of his own in England. On the face of it, Audubon and Waterton shouldnhave been natural allies but, like George Ord, Waterton could not bear anyonenwho dared to contradict him or his opinions.
n
n
n
 |
| Charles Waterton – Wanderings – 1825 (2nd Ed. 1828) |
n
n
n
nIn his Wanderings in South America,nthe North-West of the United States and the Antilles (1825), Waterton hadndescribed how vultures used their olfactory sense to locate carrion.
n
n
n
 |
| J J Audubon – Account of the Habits of the Turkey Buzzard – Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal – 1827 |
n
n
n
nOnnDecember 7th 1827, Audubon’s paper Account of the Habits of thenTurkey Buzzard (Vultur aura), particularly with the view of exploding thenopinion generally entertained of its extraordinary power of Smelling wasnpresented to the Wernian Society of Natural History in Edinburgh, a paper thatndirectly contradicts Waterton’s account.
n
n
n
nWhen Perceval Hunter defendednAudubon’s views in the Magazine of Natural History of 1833, it was toonmuch for Waterton’s pride, he could not do other than reply. So, and with anline from Virgil’s Æneid, Waterton put his first shot across Audubon’snbows.
n
n
n
nQuis novus hic nostris successit sedibus hospes?n
nWho is this new guestnwho approaches our seat?n
n
n
nWho indeed? This American has arrived in ournmidst, unknown in his own country, and is immediately lauded as
n
n
n
n‘annornithological luminary of the first magnitude’.n
n
n
nHow can this be?
n
n
n
n“Hisndrawings are out of the question, they being solely a work of art.”n
n
n
n
n
 |
| Charles Waterton – On the Biography of Birds – Magazine of Natural History – 1833 |
n
n
n
nSo, ifnit is not the drawings, it must be the words. Waterton looks at Audubon’snaccount of the Vultur Aura, and most certainly finds it wanting;
n
n
n
n“[The] production is lamentably faulty at almost every point. Its grammar isnbad; its composition poor; and its statements are … unsatisfactory.”n
n
n
nAnpaper as poor as this cannot possibly be the cause of the praise being heapednupon Audubon’s shoulders, so perhaps his reputation is being made through the OrnithologicalnBiographies? Now these, Waterton admits, may have some literary merits,nhowever much they lack in ornithological merit. How can this be? Well, ofncourse, Waterton deduces, they must not be the production of the same pen! Doesnnot Audubon himself admit in his introduction that he was ‘assisted’ byna friend in the scientific details of the work? Maybe we should take thencurrent recommendations to read ‘Mr Audubon’s’ works, if indeed they are hisnworks, with a grain of salt?
n
n
n
 |
| J J Audubon – Turkey Vulture – Birds of America |
n
n
n
nIndeed, when we compare the paper on the TurkeynVulture with the style of the Biographies, there can only be one reasonablenconclusion – the backwoodsman Audubon may have written the first, but hisnscientific ‘assistant’ has most definitely written the latter.
n
n
n
n“[T]hencorrect and elegant style of composition which appears throughout the wholenof the Biography of Birds cannot possibly be that of him whose name itnbears; we have undoubted facts to prove that it is far beyond the reach ofnAudubon.”n
n
n
nIt is clear, if you can’t trust him when he says he has writtennthe book, how can you then trust what that book contains?
n
n
n
nThere was somethingnthat Charles Waterton did not know. He didn’t know that when John James Audubonnreturned to America, his place in England was taken by his son, Victor, whontook up his own pen in defence of his father.
n
n
n
 |
| Victor Audubon – Letter to the Magazine of Natural History – June 7 1833 |
n
n
n
nIn a letter to the Magazine ofnNatural History dated June 7th 1833, he thanks Mr Waterton fornhis good grace in holding back his criticism for two whole years and waitingnuntil his father had left these shores before attacking his reputation, and henassures him that, when he returns and if he thinks it worth his while, he willnbe more than willing to put Mr Waterton right. Another letter, dated June 10th,nwas printed directly after Victor Audubon’s in the same issue of the Magazine.
n
n
n
 |
| Magazine of Natural History – 1833 |
n
n
n
nThis was from Robert Bakewell, the nephew of Lucy Audubon’s grandfather, and isna masterpiece of nineteenth century English understatement. It is the case, innthe biographies of the seekers after scientific truths, that when they returnnfrom their expeditions, they often find that the jealous and the envious havenbeen at work undermining their fair won fame. Mr Audubon was currently away, innLabrador, gathering information on the ornithology of that region, and would bendismayed by the imputations being made by Mr Waterton, the author of thenalways-amusing Wanderings.
n
n
n
 |
| Charles Waterton |
n
n
n
nNow, far be it from Bakewell to point outnthat Mr Audubon was, even then, out in the wilderness, alone and dependent ofnhis gun for his sole protection, suffering the privations and dangers in ordernto make his living, whereas Mr Waterton wrote from the comfort of a tranquilnEnglish mansion, surrounded by lush paternal acres, and when he went into thenwild himself, he departed from his family’s rich plantation, accompanied by hisnslaves and attendants.
n
n
n
 |
| Walton Hall, Wakefield – Charles Waterton’s family seat |
n
n
n
nNor should it be mentioned that until the age ofnseventeen, Mr Audubon spoke only French, and would it not only be natural fornhim to ask his wife, an educated English lady from a good family, to cast herneye over his prose before he sent it off for publication? And might it also benthe case, that he might ask a scientific friend to perform a similar task, justnto verify his facts? He writes with reluctance, and begs Mr Waterton’s pardonnbut, he asks, might that gentleman’s own Wanderings stand up to concertedncriticism?
n
n
n
nIt is much safer to put the foot into a hornet’s nest, thannprovoke a swarm of naturalists.n
n
n
nI leave it to you to decide if that is annobservation or a threat.
nnn
n
nnn
n