What has become of this mysterious phantom that has been a wandering and disturbing voice among ornithologists for over a century? It has given rise to no end of conflicting and sharp discussions between the partisans of the two naturalists chiefly concerned, the only thing certain being that if this supposititious species ever existed, it has forsaken its old haunts, if not the earth itself, and has never returned. No doubt it was simply a case of mistaken identity, and both Wilson and Audubon were wrong, each having had in hand and mind an immature representative of one of our numerous Warblers, which are now so much better known.[196] If Wilson copied Audubon's drawing of the bird, he must have replaced it with one of his own, for the figures of the two naturalists are very unlike. Certainly Audubon should not have made so serious a charge without offering more substantial evidence in proof; perhaps what he had intended to convey was that Wilson had obtained from him his first knowledge of the bird, and he was nettled to find that he had been studiously ignored.[197]
Among the originals of Audubon's Birds of America in possession of the Historical Society of New York, there is an early drawing of a Warbler which bears in pencil, in the naturalist's hand, the following note: "This bird was copied by Mr. Willson at Louisville."[198] The misspelling of Wilson's name, which was common with Audubon as late as 1820, would indicate that the note was not added after that time, but if Wilson copied this drawing, there is no evidence that he ever used it.
Ord made another charge in which Audubon does not appear to such good advantage; though it refers to a later day, it is best to consider it now. This critic thought that a complaint of misappropriation came with ill grace from one who had been guilty of it himself, and maintained that Audubon had copied Wilson's figures of the female Red-wing Blackbird (The Birds of America, Plate LXVII), and had also stolen his drawing of the Mississippi Kite (Plate CXVII). Ord was probably mistaken in regard to the blackbird, but without a doubt the lower bird in the Kite plate was taken from Wilson (American Ornithology, Plate 25), though the copyist has reversed the outlines, left out one of the toes, added minor details, and misnamed the sex, which in the Wilson original represents a male. Without a doubt also the odium in this case must fall upon Audubon, but we are not at all certain that he was directly responsible for the theft. Audubon's plate of this species, which is finished in elaborate detail, was probably published towards the close of 1831, when he was in America. He furnished his engraver, we believe, with the drawing of the upper bird only, which he designated as a male, and the original still exists, with clearly written notes showing that it was executed in Louisiana in 1821.[199]
THE "TWIN" MISSISSIPPI KITES OF WILSON (LEFT) AND AUDUBON (RIGHT), THE SIMILARITY OF WHICH INSPIRED ORD'S CHARGES OF MISAPPROPRIATION AGAINST AUDUBON.
Audubon usually made up his drawings for the engraver with great care, but when pressed for time, Havell's skill was such that he often depended upon him to complete or change his figures, to fill in backgrounds, or even to combine several distinct figures into one plate, specific directions for all such changes being usually written on the drawing itself.[200] Inasmuch as no penciled directions whatever occur on this particular drawing, is it possible that Havell, in piecing it out to improve the composition, followed his own initiative, not fully appreciating the stigma that is rightly attached to such methods? The bird in the lower half of the plate, which was appropriated from Wilson, is misrepresented as a female, so that the composite, as it stands, is a remarkable product, supposedly depicting a pair but in reality showing two males. Although the apparent difference in sex in this bird was admittedly slight, it is improbable that so gross an error could have escaped the naturalist's eye had he been directly concerned with the result.
When Audubon was descending the Mississippi in December, 1820, he saw the kites busily engaged "in catching small lizards off the bark of dead cypress trees," but "having at that time no crayons or paper," he "did not draw one, and determined," as he then wrote in his journal, "never to draw from a stuffed bird." "I first saw the Mississippi Kite," he added, when "ascending in the steamboat Paragon, in June, 1819." Wilson, on the other hand, in his knowledge of this interesting bird was far in advance of his later rival, for his first observations were made in 1810, "in the Mississippi territory, a few miles below Natchez, on the plantation of William Dunbar, esquire, when the bird represented in the plate was obtained, after being slightly wounded; and the drawing made with great care from the living bird." "For several miles, as I passed near Bayo Manchak," Wilson continues, "the trees were swarming with a kind of cicada, or locust, that made a deafening noise; and here I observed numbers of the Hawk now before us sweeping about among the trees like Swallows, evidently in pursuit of these locusts; so that insects, it would appear, are the principal food of this species."[201] Wilson never succeeded in procuring the female of this graceful hawk, and his editor, George Ord, evidently continued the quest, for we find his correspondent, John Abbot, writing him from "Scriven County Georgia Mar. 1814": "Are you acquainted with the female yet of the Louisiana Kite?"[202]
We have entered into the detailed history of this plate because of the unfavorable comment which it has provoked, but it is easier to be critical than to be either just or correct, and without more definite knowledge than we possess, it would be unfair to censure Audubon too much or to shift the blame too completely upon the shoulders of another.
To return again to the story of Wilson's diary, it is evident that Wilson would never have published his sentiments in the form in which they later appeared. They were perfectly characterized by a just critic of an early day,[203] who said that Wilson's words were without doubt written in a moment of keen depression and disappointment and were an exact description of his feelings, though, as we should also add, not of the facts. "A man who has given his heart to the accomplishment of an object, believing that he has no rival, must be somewhat more than human, if he be delighted to find that another is engaged in the same purpose, with equal energy and advantages far greater than his own." Barring his usual inaccuracies, it must be admitted that Audubon's account bears the thumbmarks of truth. He could not have known the bitter struggles of the proud spirit whose history we have briefly told; he saw only a stranger, an ardent devotee of nature, it is true, but a man of unbending disposition, who with a little more suavity of address could probably have won his friendship, if not his subscription. Of the literary quality of Wilson's work, now so well appreciated, he could have known nothing at all; after turning its pages in his Louisville store for the first time in 1810, he probably did not see it again for over ten years.