476
H•o•,
AUDUBON
BY
Audubon
andtheDauphin
AND
THE
FRANCIS
H.
[Auk
Loct.
DAUPHIN
HERRICK
I
WAS John JamesAudubonLouis Charles,Dauphin and Duke of Normandy, who by hereditaryright becameKing of France in name, at the
momentthe head of his father, Louis XVI, fell under the guillotinein Paris,
January21, 17937 Was he the little boy prince,who was "in the way",
and "not wanted"by hisunclesandmanyof his countrymen,his potential
subjects? Was he that unfortunatechild who, orphanedby regicides,was
held a closeprisonerfor threeimpressionable
yearsof his younglife? Was
he the boy who, in consequence
of suchtreatment, accordingto somereports,developeda tendencyto scrofula,whichwe shouldnow call tuberculosis?Finally, washe the ten-year-oldboy whowasoiSicially
declaredto
have died in the Temple prison,June 7, 1795, a conclusionwhich many
historiansaccepted,althoughthere is now strongevidence,as somethink,
that the true princewas spiritedout of the Tower, but when or how, or
whereor howlonghe may have lived,are questionswhichhave not yet been
and perhapsneverwill be, answeredwith finality.
When everythingis considered,
thesequestionsrelatingto Auduboncan
receive but one answer,--a decisivenegative. I repeat them now only
becausethey have been seriouslyasked, and incredibleas it may seem,
have beengivena warm welcomeby two recentbiographers.
!
Miss Rourke mentions a number of reasons which have led her to favor
the fantasticDauphin idea. The fact that Audubonwasfirst called "Foug[re," and later "Jean Rabin," while for a time he used the name "La
Forest," is cited with suspicion. When Captain Jean Audubonfinally
returnedfrom Santo Domingoto France, late in 1789, "how many children," sheasks,"did he bringwith him?"and, "if he wasaccompanied
by a
little boy, thereis no certainty," shesays,"that this wasthe sameboy who
wasadoptedas Foug[re," in 1794. If this werenot the sameboy, neither
shenor Mrs. Tyler knowwhat becameof the first, or have any proofthat
Audubonwasa substitutechild. Therewasa longperiod,saysMissRourke,
betweenAudubon's
birth (April 26, 1785)andhisadoption(March 7, 1794)
of nearly nine years,and "this gap has neverbeenfilled in. Wherewas
this boy during this time? It is well within the range of possibilitythat
after his return to France during the Revolution, a boy was entrustedto
the care of Captain Audubonwhoseidentity he wasinducedto hide. He
may have usedthe approximatebirthday and later the name of the little
See "Audubon,"
by Constance R ourke, New York,
All," by Alice Jaynes Tyler, New Haven. 1937.
1936, and "I Who Should COmmand
'Vol. 541
1937
J
HERRICK,
Audubon
aridtheDauphin
477
boy born in SantoDomingoto coverthe historyof anotherchild. Someof
thoseclosestto Audubonduring his lifetime believedimplicitly that he was
of noble birth."
Miss Maria R. Audubon,the naturalist'sgranddaughter,stated to me in
1914 that Jean Audubonand his wife settledsomeproperty upon "Jean
Rabin, creolede Saint-Domingue,"which he refusedto acceptunder that
name, saying,"My own name I have never beenpermittedeven to speak;
accord me that of Audubon, which I revere, as I have causeto do." This
referenceto property probably has to do with the wills of his father and
stepmother,
in whichthe objectionable
nameoccursmanytimes. Audubon's
dislikeof the Rabin name doesnot seemto have persisted,for in view of the
settlementof property under those wills, on July 25, 1817, a power of
attorney was drawn in favor of his brother-in-law, Gabriel Loyen du
Pulgaudeau. In this curiousdocumentthe naturalist refers to himself as
"John Audubon," and as "Jean Rabin, husbandof Lucy Bakewell," the
Jean Rabin alias occurringfour times in the text over the signatureof
"John J. Audubon"
at the end.
An English reviewer once expressedregret that I had probed the birth
and parentageof Audubon,sayingthat he preferredto take this illustrious
man at his word that he "belongedto every country." Suchwritersforget
that a prime duty of every biographeris to make his subjectknown, and
that this is impossibleif he comesfrom nowhere,or asJohnNeal facetiously
remarked,if he is "one of thoseextraordinarymen who are erected,--never
born at all." Audubon'sfather "had other reasons,"thinks Miss Rourke,
"for sendingFoug•re to Americawhich he did not disclose.
They
could not have had to do with money.
Whatever hisreasonswere
they persisted,and may have had to do with the boy'sparentage."
Mrs. Tyler beginsher book with a quotation:"History has the inalien-
ableright to be written correctly,"to whicheveryhonestpersonwill sub-scribe,but whichwritersof biographyare too proneto forget. Throughout
her book sherefersto me as "Robert," a praenomenI have never borne,
but sincenamesare easilyconfused,I forgiveher. The naturalist'sfather
is usuallyreferredto as "Admiral Audubon,"whichgivesa senseof unreality to her text, as the highestrank which Jean Audubonattained in the
navy was lieutenant (lieutenantde vaisseaux),one grade below that of
captain. In my 'Life of Audubon'I gavea summaryof the naval careerof
his father in the merchantmarineand navy of France, as recordedin the
officlalrecordsof the navy departmentin Paris. Jean Audubonheld the
rank of lieutenantfrom October11, 1797,until his retirementfor disability
January1, 1801. PerhapsMrs. Tyler followedthe exampleof Miss Maria
R. Audubon,who wasaccustomed
to give this exaltedrank to her grandfather, and perhapsshegot it from a letter that Auduboncarriedwith him
478
HERRICK,
Audubon
andtheDauphin
[Auk
[Oct.
whenleavingEdinburghfor London,written by Mr. Hay, and addressed,
March 15, 1827, to his brother, Robert William Hay, Downing St., West,
and in which the followingoccurs:"Mr. Audubonis a son of the late
French Admiral Audubon, but has himself lived from the cradle in the
United States,havingbeenbornin oneof the Frenchcolonies."Audubon
certainlyshouldhaveknownhis father'snavalrank, and alsothat he himself could not have lived from the cradle in the United States, but the last
statement is now believed to have been true.
Strongpresumptiveevidencehad led me to concludethat JohnJames
Audubonwasthe illegitimatesonof LieutenantJeanAudubonand MademoiselleRabin, a French cr6oleof SantoDomingo. "Rather than tolerate
the suggestion
of illegitimacyin regardto their grandfather,"saysMrs.
Tyler, "the old ladiesdecidedto bear the rigorsof publicity,if needsbe,
and to give to the world the informationwhichwoulddisprovethis biography.• To that endthey releasedme from the promiseto withholdpublicationof their 'secret,'and perhapsthe world'ssecretalso." This family
secretof Audubon'snoble birth, which is revealedin Mrs. Tyler's 'I Who
ShouldCommandAll', wasimpartedby the naturalistin lettersto hiswife,
and in his Journals,which were written for her benefit, and for her alone,
but with no thoughtof their publication. The significantpassages
were
copiedby his granddaughter,
Miss Maria R. Audubon,into a little black
notebook,whichI was permittedto seein 1914but, out of respectto her
wishesand those of her sister,Miss FlorenceAudubon, they were only
briefly referredto in my 'Life' of their grandfatherin 1917. In the course
of our conversationMiss Audubon confessedthat she had really never
known who her grandfatherwas, but that in the light of these journal
entriesshehad cometo think that he might have beenthe lost Dauphin.
In commenting
on this questionMiss Audubonaddedthat a gentleman,to
whom these extractshad been shown,said that possiblythey had been
written to obscurethe unwelcomefact of illegitimacy, a wise remark, as
the sequelseemsto have shown. I then tried to dissuadeMiss Audubon
from her expressed
intentionof destroyingthe originalmanuscript,but to
no avail.
The entriesin this notebook,which form the basisof Mrs. Tyler's 'I
Who ShouldCommandAll,' haverecentlybeenpublishedby StanleyClisby
Arthur• in his fair-minded,detailedand altogetherexcellentbiography.
Mrs. Tyler saysthat I have not recordedone biographicalevent between
the year 1794, the year of Audubon'sadoption,and 1800, the year of his
baptism, and tries to put young Audubonin "Selkirk's Settlements,"in
x See 'Audubon
the l•aturaHst:
A History
of his Life and Time'; in two vols., New York,
1917.
2 See Stanley CHsby Arthur;
New Orleans, 1937.
'Audubon:
an Intimate
Life of the American Woodsman,'
¾ol. 54•
1937
J
HERRICK,
Audubon
andtheDauphin
479
Canada,at sometime duringtheseearlyyears. All of thesequestions
will
be taken up a little later.
u
In 1914,at the very outbreakof the World War, a greatflockof documentspertainingto LieutenantAudubonand his family wasdiscovered
at
CouSron,the seatof his countryvilla in France. Outstandingamongthem
was a curiousbill of Jean Audubon'sfamily physician,Doctor Sanson,of
Les Cayes,SantoDomingo,coveringa periodof nearly three years,from
December29, 1783, to October12, 1786. It was acceptedand signedby
CaptainAudubon,and receiptedby the doctor,whenpaid on June7, 1787.
This is particularlyremarkablein recordingthe birth of a child to "Mlle.
Rabin" on April 26, 1785. The inference,supportedby other documentary
testimony,wasthat this wasthe identicalchild,wholater becameknownas
JohnJamesAudubon,and the preponderance
of evidencein favor of this
conclusionis evenstrongertoday.
Jean and Anne Moynet Audubonappearedin the town hall at Nantes,
on March 7, 1794, and declaredthat they did "adopt and recognizefrom
this moment as their lawful childrento wit: a male child, named Foug•re,
bornsincetheir marriage ....
to him, JeanAudubon,and a woman
livingin America,whohasbeendeadabouteightyears,and a femalechild,
named Muguet, born also sincetheir marriageaforesaid,to him and another womanliving in America,namedCatharineBouffard,of whosefate
he is ignorant.
"The two childrenbeing present,the first aged nine years, that will
expireon the 22d of next April, the secondagedsevenyears,that will also
expireon the 26th of April next, and both havingbeenborn in America,
accordingto the declarationwhich the witnessesabove mentionedhave
signifiedas true, I have drawn up the presentact, whichthe natural father
and the motherby adoption,aswell astheir witnesses
havesigned,together
with myselfin this saidday and year."
Foug[reor JeanR'abinwasbaptized,asJeanJacques
Foug[re(Audubon)
on October23, 1800, and the act was signedby Tardiveau, priestof St.
Similien Church.
The Jean Rabin aliaswas usedin the six wills drawn by Jean Audubon
and his wife betweenthe years1812-21,and by Audubonhimselfin the
powerof attorney to which I have referred. It is thesevariouslegaldocumentsbearinguponAudubon'sbirth and parentage,whichMissRourkeand
Mrs. Tyler set asideas "not proven," yet they do not hesitateto place
Audubonat the foot of a longlist of spuriousclaimantsto beingthe sonof
LouisXVI and Marie Antoinette,withouta shredof documentary
support
to sucha claim,exceptingthe family tradition,baseduponextractsfrom
lettersand journalsintendedby Audubonfor the perusalof his wife alone.
480
HERRICE,
Audubon
andtheDauphin
•Auk
[Oct.
III
It is generallyassumedthat the person,whoseparentsare not living,
knowsmoreabouthisearlyhistorythan anybodyelse,andthis is commonly
true,exceptin the caseof a child'searlyadoption,substitution,
or abandonment by its true parents. What Audubonsaidpubliclyor privately about
his birth, his age,and his parents,formsa mystifyingrecord. Accordingto
VincentNolte, Audubon,after parryingsomepryingquestionsabouthimselfin 1811,admittedthat he wasa Frenchmanby birth and a nativeof La
Rochelle. JosephRobert Mason,youthfulcompanion
of Audubonon his
famousjourneydownthe Ohioand Mississippi
Riversin 1820-21,and who
was closelyassociated
with him for twenty-onemonths,told John Neal
fifteenyearslater that Audubonhad repeatedlyrepresented
to him that he
was born in Santo Domingo.
Audubon'sjournalrecordof this journey,whichI waspermittedto examine rather cursorilytwenty years ago, was publishedin 1929, and is
commented
on quiteprofuselyby StanleyClisbyArthur. While fortunate
in escapingthe fire and generalmutilation by injudicioushands,thisrecord hasbeentamperedwith at onecriticalpoint,in the entry of November
28, 1820, where Audubonspokeof his birth and parentage,and related
incidentswhichhe thoughtthat hisfamily in the futuremightwishto know.
The mutilator of his text, however,as Mr. Arthur observed,did not succeedin forever obscuringwhat it was intended to conceal. In the two
linesat this point,whichhavebeenblottedout aseffectivelywith a penas
couldhavebeendonewith an ink-filledbrush,we canreasonablyinfer that
Audubongavehis ownmother'sname,and eitherstatedor impliedthat he
wasbornout of wedlock,andin SantoDomingo. This inferenceis justified
by the additionthroughthe mediumof another'shand and anotherkind of
ink of the prefix"re" to the word"married" in what immediatelyfollows
the blotted lines. This, as originallywritten, reads:"My Mother, who I
have beentold was an extraordinarybeautifulWoman,died shortlyafter
my Birth and my father having married in France I was removedthereto
whenonly Two Yearsold and receivedby that Bestof Women,raisedand
cherished
by her to the utmostof her Means
." Now, it is evident
that the person,who obliteratedthosetwo linesand changed"married"
to "remarried,"was determinedto make it appearthat CaptainAudubon
had beenfirstmarriedto hisboy'smother,but that after her deathhe took
their childto France,wherehe marriedagain,and this time to the woman
who becamethe boy's stepmother,when the truth, as Audubonhad evi-
dentlff
stated
it, wasquite
theopposite.
A few yearslater, about 1824,whenAudubonand his wife wereliving at
'Beechwoods',
a plantationnear St. Francisville,Louisiana,the wife of his
old friend and formerclerk,Dr. NathanielWells Pope,left a recordof her
Vol. 54]
1937
J
HERRICK,
Audubon
andtheDauphin
481
reminiscences,
quotedby Mr. Arthur, in whichshesaidthat Audubonhad
often describedto her the cottagein which he was born, that was situated
on the banksof the Mississippi
River in LowerLouisianaand surrounded
by orangetrees.
At Oxford,in 1828,a lady whowantedhis autograph,askedAudubonto
write his name and the date of his birth. The latter, he said he could not
do, "exceptapproximately,"and his hostess"was greatlyamusedthat he
should not know."
As I have already noticed,Audubonappearsto have told Mr. Hay, of
Edinburghin March, 1827,that hewasbornin "oneof the Frenchcolonies."
In the introductionto the first volumeof the 'OrnithologicalBiography,'
Audubon, who was under no necessityof sayinganything about his birth,
madethe vagueafiqrmation:"I receivedlife and light in the New World,"
and continues:"When I had hardly yet learnedto walk, and to articulate
thosefirstwordsalwayssoendearingto parents,the productions
of Nature,
that lay spreadall around,wereconstantlypointedout to me"; and in the
biographicalsketch,"Myself" he wrote'that "the first of my recollectlye
powersplacedme in the centralportionof the city of Nantes,on the Loire
River, in France." How do suchstatementssupportthe theorythat J. J.
Audubonwas the lost Dauphin,or suggestthe palaceat Versailles,where
Louis Charleswas born, with forty or more servitorsaround him with assignments
mainly directedto the careof this little boy, not to speakof his
later governesses,
tutorsor teachers?
In the biographical
sketchjust referredto, supposed
to havebeenwritten
about 1835, and which, though edited by his granddaughter,is replete
with palpableerrors,he wrotethat "the preciseperiodof my birth is yet an
enigmato me." He then spokeof his fathergoingfrom SantoDomingoto
Louisiana,and there marryinga Spanishlady of beauty and wealth, and
of havingthree sonsborn to them, "I beingthe youngestof the sons,and
the onlyonewhosurvivedextremeyouth. My mother,soonafter my birth
[implyingthat he was born in Louisiana],accompanied
my father to the
estate(sic)of Aux Cayes,on the islandof SantoDomingo,and shewasone
of the victimsof the ever-to-belamentedperiodof the negroinsurrection
of that island."
The evidencenow availablefrom a variety of sourcesas alreadystated,
pointsclearlyto the fact that the motherof Audubonwasa Frenchcr4ole,
MademoiselleRabin, native of Santo Domingo, where her childrenwere
all born, that shewas not married to Audubon'sfather, who stated under
oathin the bill of adoptionthat the motherof hissonhaddied"abouteight
years"priorto March7, 1794(thedateof the signing
of theact)thatisin
1786,or oneyear after 1785,the year of the birth of the childbornto Mlle.
Rabin, asrecordedin the Sansonbill, the later entriesof whichproveher to
have beenin declininghealth.
482
HEaaIe•,
Audubon
andtheDauphin
Auk
[oct.
In variousextractsfrom Audubon'sjournals,written for the benefit of
his wife,but not for the public,at varioustimesfrom 1826to 1828,chiefly
at Edinburghand Paris,heffecords
a visit from the Countess
of Selkirk,
speaksof hishighbirth, of walkingthe streetsof Parislike a commonman,
when he "should command all," of his hated uncle, "Audubon of La
Rochelle,"and speaksof the oath underwhichhe wasboundnot to reveal
hisidentity. The nameof the Dauphin,or of LouisXVII, doesnotappear
in any of theseexcerpts,but the referenceseemsto be clear.
It shouldbe remembered
that whenthe Dauphinand his motherwere
separatedin the Temple prisonon July 3, 1793,Louis Charleswas in his
ninthyear, and that the boy wasnearlyeightyearsold whenhisfatherwas
executed,so that their sonhad the memoryof severalyearsof both hls
parents,to whom,according
to the testimonyof all whohad knownthem,
he was devotedlyattached.
Mr. Arthur speaksof Miss Harriet BachmanAudubon,daughterof John
WoodhouseAudubonby his first wife, telling how she had read in her
grandfather's
journalone significantsentence:
he madereferenceto "my
father, meaningJean Audubon,--and in the next sentencesaid 'my own
father whom I saw shot.' He said 'shot'becausehe was only eight years
old and the word 'to guillotine'was not then invented." Miss Audubon
was evidentlypromotingthe idea that the naturalist's'own father' was
LouisXVI, and that her grandfatherwas,or had been,the Dauphin,but if
there is any truth in the quotationit would definitelyprove that J. J.
Auduboncould never have been the Dauphin, becausethe executionof
LouisXVI wasnot witnessed
by any memberof the royalfamily.
When writing to Bachmanin 1832,Audubongavehis own ageas fortyseven,whichwouldimply that he wasborn in 1785,and this wouldagree
with the date of the child born to Mlle. Rabin, as noticed in Dr. Sansoh's
bill. In writing to Bachmanagainsixyearslater, on April 14, 1838,Audubonspeaksof hisbeingthenfifty-threeyearsold, whichwouldagainpoint
to the same birth date.
In a letter to his wife, written from New Orleans,in 1837,as noticedby
Mr. Arthur, he spokeof that town as "my natal city"; and the localnewspapersof that time hailedAudubonas a native of Louisiana. Moreover,
Cuvier,in his report on 'The Birds of America'to the Royal Academyof
Sciences
of Paris,September
22, 1828,madethe samestatement,whichin
this easecouldhavecomeonly from Audubonhimself;and whenAudubon
sailedfor the United Stateswith Rozierin 1806his passportindicatedthat
he was born in New Orleans.
Thosecommittedto the Dauphin theory seein Audubon'sfeaturesa
strongBourbonlikeness,but suchfaneiedresemblances
nevercarrymuch
Vol. 54]
1937J
HERRICK,
a.
Dauhi
483
weight. Rev. JohnHalloway Hanson,1 the biographerand protagonistof
Eleazar Williams, was certain that this half-breed Indian was an aristocrat
for he had the Bourbonfeaturesfrom top to toe. To many, perhaps,it
would seemstrangethat J. J. Audubonshouldhave found so closea resemblance
betweenhimselfand JeanAudubonunlesshisfatherby adoption
werehis "real father." Whenwritingin 1820,Audubonsaidthat "Major
Croghanof Kentucky told me often that he [JeanAudubon]lookedmuch
likeme [andhe]wasparticularlywellacquainted
with him". In the "Myself" sketchhe alsosaid:"In personalappearance
my father and I wereof
the sameheight and stature,beingabout five feet, ten inches,erect and
with musclesof steel.
In temper we much resembledeachother
also."
One day in October,1826,when Audubonreturnedto his roomsin Edinburgh, and lookedinto a mirror, he saw not only his own face, but "such a
strongresemblance
to that of my veneratedfather that I ahnostimagined
that it washe that I saw;the thoughtsof my mothercameto me, my sister,
and ,ny youngdays,--all wasat hand,yet how far away." This doesnot
soundlike a Dauphin speaking;and it is doubtlesstrue that comparisons
drawnbetweenthe livingor memoriesof the livingare moresignificantthan
thosebaseduponengravings
or reproductions
of old paintings.
In writing to youngSpencerF. Baird in 1842, Audubonexpressed
the
curious,if purelyfanciful,ideathat his motheroncelived at "Mill Grove,"
near Morristownin Pennsylvania.
The foregoingrecordprobablydoesnot exhaustall the possibilities,
but
it is amazingenough,and partly explainswhy JohnNeal sooften taunted
Audubonfor havinghad asmany birthplacesas the poetHomer. A remarkablefact aboutmostof thesestatementsis that they cometo us secondhand,
that is from private lettersand edited journals,the quotationsfrom the
'OrnithologicalBiography'being the only onesthat werepublishedunder
Audubon'sown signature. It would seemto be obviousthat Audubonwas
determinedthat the facts concerninghis birth and parentageshould not
be made public,and that to achievethis end he resortedto enigma,as the
best available smoke-screen.If he thought that public knowledgeof those
facts wouldhave beena stumblingblock in his own career,and in that of
his two sons,whom he oncesaid he hopedmight rise to eminence,he was
indubitablyright, for strangeas it may seem,and unjustas it certainlyis,
the stigmaof illegitimacyhas alwaysbeena penalty whichthe public is
everready to placeon the headof the innocent. What strangersor what his
intimates knew about thosefamily matters is what Audubonwas willing to
• Author of 'The Lost Prince,' New York, 1854. With this book, said william W. Wight,
the habit began of referring to Louis XVII as "lost" as if he had been mislaid or hidden.
"He was 'lost' only in the sense that he died." Hanson's mother was a daughter of a younger
brother of Oliver Goldsmith, the poet.
4s4
HERRICK,
Audubon
andtheDauphin
[Auk
[Oct.
tell them, and his own recordseemsto showplainly enoughthat he preferredto bear the tauntsof the uncharitablethan to facethe reality.
IV
"One of the greatmiraclesof history would have occurred,"writesMiss
Rourke,"if Audubonwerethe lost Dauphin,but this is nothingagainst
the idea." True enough,but the same could be said of Eleazar Williams,
or any oneof the numerouspretenders. If therewere solid,unmistakable
evidenceto supportthis conclusion,
I would be only too glad to acceptit,
but the presumptiveevidenceis all the otherway. The theoryis too weak
to stand on its own feet.
"Someof those,"saysMissRourke,"dosestto Audubon
duringhislifetime,believedimplicitlythat he wasof noblebirth." Thisis, no doubt,very
true, but Audubonsaidmany thingsat differenttimesto differentpersons
that contradictany suchidea,as that he wasbornin the New World, that
his first memorieswere of Nantes, or that the only mother he had ever
knownwas his stepmother. Thus in forminga judgment,independentof
all domesticpartiality,we seemto be thrownbackuponthoselegal,family
documents,
whichwere drawn up beforethe youth was grownto man's
estateand wasobligedto fighthisway in a hostileworld.
"There was a gap," Miss Rourke thinks,"of nine yearsbetweenAudubon'sbirth (April 26, 1785)and his adoption(March 7, 1794),whichhas
not beenfilledin. Wherewasthe boy duringthis time?" The evidenceis
fairly conclusivethat Jean Audubontook his sonto Francelate in 1789,so
that this "gap" is reducedto about five years,and it seemsto me that in
his 'Ornithological
Biography'and the "Myself" sketchhe has filled this
interval quite well enoughhimself. In the latter he spokeof "being constantly attendedby two black servants,who had followedmy father from
Santo Domingoto New Orleansand afterwardsto Nantes." Mrs. Tyler
saysthat "it can be only mental inertia whichhas allowedhundredsof
intelligentpeopleto read this sentence,and not pressthe inquiry why the
illegitimatesonof a common,seafaringcaptainof Nantesshouldhavebeen
constantly
attended
by oneor two black servants." But what shallbe said
of the mentalconditionof the peoplewhoreadthe openingsentence
of the
sameparagraphabout Audubon'sfirst recollectivepowersplacinghim in
the centralpart of the city of Nantes? If that statementwasliterally true
no onecouldevercontendthat Audubonwasthe lost Dauphin. Moreover,
one would think that a householdwith an active boy rising five years (in
1790),and a girl risingthree,couldkeepany two black servantson their
toesfor a goodlong time. Audubondid not mentionhis little sisterRosa,
but there is no reasonto suppose
that he monopolized
all the attentionof
those black servants.
Vol. 541
1937J
HERRICK,
Audubon
andtheDauphin
485
In 1789,JeanAudubonhad jumpedfrom the frying pan of SantoDomingo into the revolutionaryfiresthat werethen sweeping
France. At Nantes
he becamean ardent revolutionistwhen his city was entering the most
terribleyearsof its history. It withstooda determined
siegeby the loyalists
of La Vend•e under Charette, and a reign of terror under Jean Baptiste
Cartier,whoserecallon February14, 1794,just twenty-onedaysbeforethe
act of the adoptionof his childrenwassigned,had givenhim and hisfellow
citizensthe firstrespitethey hadenjoyedin a considerable
time. At Nantes,
Captain Audubonhad occupieda number of differenthousesduring an
interruptedresidenceof many years; and he continuedto live there with
hisfamilyuntil hisretirementfromthe navyfor disability,January1, 1801,
when he settled at his country villa, "La Gerbeti[re," at Courron, on the
right bank of the Loire, nine milesdown the river.
During this earliertime, up to his sixteenthyear, youngAudubonhad
receivedlittle regularschooling,but had enjoyeda gooddeal of desultory
experiencein natural history and drawing. Thereafter, from 1801 to 1803,
whenhe first returnedto America,and for a part of a year, 1805-06,when
he was at Courron, aside from slight digressions,he was roaming the
countrysideand makinga collectionof hisowndrawingsof the native birds.
Accordingto his ownaccountof theseformativeyears,he receiveda plenty
of good advice, criticismand admonitionfrom his father, and it was at
Courronthat Foug[refirst met Dr. Charlesd'Orbigny,whomight be called
hisfatherin naturalhistory. For my part I do not seethe needof doubting
the identity of the youth, whoselife we have briefly followedfrom 1789 to
1803. If this wasAudubon,who up to hiseighteenthyear had spentnearly
five yearsin SantoDomingo,elevenyearsin Nantes,and partsof two years
at Courron,wheredoesthe Bourbonprinceenter the picture?
Miss Rourke
thinks that Lieutenant
Audubon did not tell all of his
reasonsfor sendinghis son to the United States, and that "whatever his
reasonswerethey persisted,and may have had to do with the boy'sparentage." This may betrue, but whatthe fatherdid not tell, the sonapparently
did. In writing to Miers Fisher in 1803, and to Francis Da Costa in the
winter of 1804-05, LieutenantAudubonexpresslysaid that the compelling
reasonsfor sendinghis son to Amerlea at that time were to enablehim to
learnEnglishand entertrade. "Remember,my dearSir," the elderAudubon wrote, "I expectthat if your plan [with the lead mine]succeeds,
my
sonwill find a placein the works,whichwill enablehim to providefor himself,in orderto sparemefromexpenses
whichI canwith difficultysupport."
If youngAudubonhad beenthe Dauphinor the legalking of France,is it at
all probablethat LieutenantJeanAudubon,but recentlyknownas suchan
ardentrevolutionist,wouldhavebeenselectedto guardthisscionof royalty,
and then out of his own slenderpursebe expectedto meet all the costsof
sendinghim to Americaand of keepinghim there?
486
UE•cK, Audubon
andtheDauphin
[Auk
There was,to be sure,anotherreasonwhy the retiredsailorand soldier
wantedto gethisson,Foug[re,out of Franceat that time, thoughhe may
not have wishedto write it. The youngman was eligiblefor conscription.
The need for "cannon fodder" was soon to becomeacute all over France,
for Napoleonbecameemperorin 1804. Audubontold the secretat a much
later time whenon the Ohio River, November26, 1820. "The conscription," he wrote, "determined my father on sendingme to America," and
he added,"a youngman of seventeen[eighteen],sent to Americato make
money,for suchwasmy father'swish."
v
In his journal of March 15, 1827, at Edinburgh, Audubonrecordeda
visit from the Countessof Selkirk, when he thought it strangethat she
shouldcall uponhim. "Did sheknow, I wonder,who I am positively;or
doesshethink that it is JohnJ. Audubon,of Louisiana,to whomshespoke?"
On October9, 1828, accordingto Mrs. Tyler, Audubonwrote: "How
often I thoughtthat I might oncemoreseeAudubonof La Rochellewithout
beingknownby him, and try to discoverif my fatherwasstill in his recollection,if he had entirelyforgottenSelkirk'sSettlements." In my version
of this entry there is no 's' at the end of the last word. The vagueness
which the plural numberseemsto impart, makesa differencein our interpretation, but not a whit with referenceto the Dauphin question. This
entry concludes:"and if
if I say a few wordsmore I must put
an end to my existence,
havingforfeitedmy wordof honorand my oath."
This referenceto Lord Selkirk, who had been much in the public eye in
Englandfor nearly ten yearsprior to his death, and for many yearsthereafter, is the tenuousthreadon whichMrs. Tyler buildsan amazingsuperstructure. "It wouldappear,"shesays,"that JohnJamesAudubonwas,
at sometime a member of Selkirk's Settlements in Canada."
She writes:
"The longsuspense
is overt At last we know the reasonfor AdmiralJean
Audubon's abnormal solicitude, which took the form of the constant at-
tendanceof thoseblack servants,who guardedJohnJamesAudubon,the
supposedly
illegitimatesonof the roughseacaptainof Nantes! That little
nine year old boy, adoptedby Jean Audubonon March 7, 1794, was a
personage
whosereal identitymightpresumably
be recognized
by the wife
of the Earl of Selkirk. The wife of the Earl of Selkirk had apparently
knownhim personallywhenhe was a settlerin Selkirk'sSettlements.It
is not hkelythat the Earl'swife habituallymet the roughcolonists
sentout
to the wildsof North America,unlessby chanceoneof thosecolonists
was
not a real settler,but wasa personage
emigratingunderthis guisein order
to hidehisidentity,and to seekthe protectionof the Earl'sremotecolony.
If the Earl of Selkirkwerehidinga personof importancein his Settlements
Vol. 541
1937]
t'/ERRIOr•,
Audubon
andtheDauphin
487
in the HudsonBay country,very probablythe Earl'swife met that person
beforeembarkation;or perhapsshe gavehim hospitalityin her home,as
was common in those days when England was the first destination of
terror strickenFrench refugees.
"And that other Audubonof La Rochelle,who apparentlyhad beenwith
him in Selkirk'sSettlements,washe the personwhohad beenentrustedto
conveyand guard that little boy of elevenyears, on the long perilous
journey to Hudson Bay?" Mrs. Tyler seemsto have confusedHudson
Bay with the Hudson's Bay Company, which drew its furs from a vast
region,but noneof Selkirk'sSettlementswas anywherenear HudsonBay.
Audubon's claim that he was bound under a solemn oath to his father
not to revealhis own identity, Mrs. Tyler thinks,explainsmany things
aboutthe early historyof Audubonthe naturalist. "Does it not explain
why the wily old seacaptain,Jean Audubon,adoptedtwochildrenon the
same day, to give a semblanceof paternity to both acts? And doesit not
suggestwhy he registeredthe name of the mother of the girl, and omitted
to registerthe name of the mother of the boy, whoserecordedage almost
paralleled that of Marie Antoinette's son, who had vanished from The
Templejust forty odddaysbeforethe date of thisadoption?"
It is my opinionthat JeanAudubon,whowasonlyfifty yearsold in 1794,
and was then just gettinga breathingspellafter periloustimes,knew what
he wastalkingabout,that he wasno perjuror,andwasperfectlyhonestin
every statementswornto and witnessedin this act of adoption. That he
wasa few daysout in hismemoryof birth datesis not important. Thereis
positively no evidence that he failed to mention the mother of his son in
orderto concealthe woman'sname. The surestway of doingthis would
have been to use a fictitious one.
Mrs. Tyler reproduces
the title of a bookon the Red River colony,which
she says "servesto prove that Selkirk'sSettlementswere preeminently
suitedfor the purposeof hidingthe little ]Kingof Francefar from a world
on fire with his pursuit.
And the by-productsof this place of
concealment
wereto exceedin importanceto the world,evenhis physical
survival. The germinatinggeniusof this growingboy, which straight
through life seemedto flower under adversity,was born of this forestlife
and intimacy with primeval nature.
"It would be natural for Admiral Audubonto turn his eyesto those
North Americanoutboundsof civilization,whichhe had so extensively
traversed,werehe castingabout to find asylumfor his adoptedsonafter
Charette'sdeath.
Somethinghad to be doneto get that little boy
out of danger,and so completelyout of reachof Carrier'sfollowersthat
pursuitwouldbe absolutelyimpossible.Nor woulddistancealoneprovide
sufficientprotection. Secrecymust againbe invoked,and masquerading
Z•88
I-IE•I½•,A•d•bo•a•dtheDa•ph•
[Auk
•Oct.
under some impenetrableguise. Selkirk's Settlementsprovided both
requirements."
Mrs. Tyler even charts the coursewhich she thinks Louis XVII, masqueradingas John JamesAudubon,had taken in travelling from Nantes to
the wilds of Canada:to England "the first destinationof so many French
refugees,Saint-Domingue,
AdmiralAudubon'sformerhome;and probably
fromthereto New Orleans,andup the Mississippito the Settlements."
"The nameLa For•t, [orLa Forest,]whichAudubonassumed,
and which
hasneverhadany explanation,
probablydatesfromthisperiod. It may be
the name under which John James Audubon was known as a Selkirk Col-
onist.
This name was probablydear to her [Mrs. Audubon],becauseshe was the only personin Audubon'slife, who knew about his
Canadiansojourn.
"This thesis,if true, providesthe explanationfor so many inexplicable
elementsin the life of John James Audubon, that it is with a distinct sense
of relief that I offerit as a workinghypothesis,
in the light of theseletters.
For, as I have said, no amount of wanderingaroundthe countrysideof
Cou•ron could have fitted this adolescentboy, John James Audubon, for
hisfuturelife, andtransformed
him into oneof the mostpowerful,resourceful woodsmen
the newworldpossessed.
"And yet whenJohnJamesAuduboncameto the United Statesin 1803,
whenhe was barelyeighteenyearsof age,he couldtraversethe continent
alonelike an Indian, find his way throughtracklessforests,swim swollen
rivers,shootwith the marksmanship
of the wilderness,and he couldsurvive with his naked fists in the primeval forestof North America. His
contactswith the Indianshad the suretouchof easyfamiliarity; his knowledgeof wild life knew no bounds.
"Where had John JamesAudubonacquiredthis forest training? It is
my beliefthat JohnJamesAudubonacquiredall his foresttrainingin the
Selkirk'sSettlements,somewherebetween1796 and 1800."
What an extraordinarypicturewe have here of the boy 'king,' whose
sisteroncesaid that if he had actually escapedfrom the Tower prison,he
couldnot have lived longon accountof his weakenedcondition;hiddenfor
a time in the heart of Nantes, under the roof of one who was, or had been,
an ardentrevolutionist,
adoptedby this very man,JeanAudubon,in place
of his own son,--aboutwhosefate no oneofthewritersquotedseemsto have
thought it necessary
to inquire,--taken secretlyto England, where Mrs.
ThomasDouglas,later to becomethe Countessof Selkirk,opensher heart
and hometo him. Then a mysterious
uncletakeshim to SantoDomingo,
thenceto New Orleans,andup the Mississippi
River to that vaguedestination called"Selkirk's Settlements"where the boy 'king' first learnedhis
Indian lore and woodcraft. It is sad to relate that this ingeniouspicture
Vol. 54]
1937
J
HERRICK,
Audubon
andtheDauphin
489
bearsno resemblance
whatsoeverto reality. As a "working hypothesis"
it fails to work. There is not an essentialline or word of truth in it, not one!
It cannotbe true in any particular,sincein the periodof 1796 to 1800,
which Mrs. Tyler is endeavoringto fill, there were no Selkirk's Settlements in existence,and none indeed before 1803, when young Audubon
was leaving France and headingfor his father's "Mill Grove" farm in
Pennsylvania.
The Scottishnobleman,Thomas Douglas,the fifth Earl of Selkirk, did
not come into his title and fortune until the death of his father in 1799. He
was a patriot who gavehis fortune and himselffor the developmentof the
BritishEmpireby laudablemeans,his greataim beingto turn the flowof
Scottishcolonistsfrom the Carolinasand New England to Canada. He
sponsored
three settlements,the first in 1803 on Prince Edward Island,
which was eventuallyfairly successful.The second,named "Baldoon"
after a villageon his ancestralacres,was situatedin the westernpeninsula
of western Canada, betweenLakes Huron and Erie, and never becamemore
than a stragglingpioneervillagebeforeit was finally plunderedby Americans in the War of 1812.
"The Selkirk Settlement" of the Red River was undoubtedlythe one to
which Audubonreferred,and about which every reader of newspapersin
England must have heard in the seconddecadeof the last century. Its
notorietywasdueto its vast area,the moneyat stake,and the numbersof
peopleinvolved. The legalbattlesfoughtover it in the courts,whichlasted
for upwardsof ten years, with their strain and worry, caused,as many
believed,the prematuredeath of Lord Selkirk at forty-ninein 1820. The
directorsof the Hudson'sBay Company had granted Selkirk an area of
116,000squaremiles, comprisingparts of what are now Manitoba, North
Dakota and Minnesota, and regardedas about the most fertile district in
the whole North Americancontinent. By the deed of January 12, 1811,
Selkirkbecamethe ownerin fee simpleof a tract five timesthe sizeof his
native Scotland. This brought Selkirk and the Hudson'sBay Company
in deadlyconflictwith the NorthwestFur Company,whosedirectorswere
more interestedin their fat dividendsthan in philanthropy. They gave
Lord Selkirk no peacein the courtsuntil, on the vergeof financialruin, his
health broke. In 1821,the year after Lord Selkirk'sdeath, the rival companies combined and later
made a financial settlement
with the Selkirk
heirs. In 1869 the purchaseof the territorial rights of the consolidated
Companyby the Dominion Governmentled to Riel's rebellion,which
wasdispersed
by BritishregularsunderColonel(later Lord) Wolsely. Lord
Selkirkseemsto have lived aboutfifty yearsaheadof his time. Sir Walter
Scott is reportedto have said of him: "I never knew in my life a man of
490
Audubon
andtheDauphin
[Auk
I_Oct.
more generousand disinteresteddisposition." A town and county in
Manitoba
bear his name. •
Why did Audubonrefer to Lord Selkirkin 1828,and why was he curious
to know if "Audubon
of La Rochelle remembered Selkirk's Settlement?"
For no better reason,apparently,than why he shouldwishto knowif this
sameAudubonof La Rochelle,whomwe have supposed
all alongwas the
naturalist's uncle, rememberedhis own brother, Jean, with whom we are
told that he had quarreled.
Lord Selkirk'sactive colonialwork lasted seventeenyears, 1803 to 1820,
duringwhichtime Audubon,--withthe exceptionof abouta year,1805-06,
when he was at CouSron,--wasin the United States,mostly engagedin
variousbusiness
enterprises.On July 26, 1817,Audubon,as already noticed, executeda powerof attorneyin favorof hisbrother-in-law,
Gabriel
Loyendu Puigaudeau,a little morethan a year after their fatherhad drawn
up his last will and but little over six monthsbeforehis death. This will
was at oncecontestedin the courtsof Nantes, on the groundthat Lieutenant Audubon'snatural children,J. J. F. Audubonand Rosedu Puigaudeau,
couldnot inherit propertyunderFrenchlaw. When thislitigation became
known,Audubonseeminglybrokeoff relationswith his father'sfamily at
CouSron,and in June, 1820, after the lawsuit had been settled by compromise,we find his brotherdndaw
writinghim an appealingletter, saying
that no word had comefrom him in two years,and that Madam Audubon
"doesnot ceaseto speakof you." Audubondid not ignorethis appeal,
and as recordedin his journal,on January10, 1821,at New Orleans,he
wrote letters to his brother-indaw and to his foster mother at CouSron,a
longneglectedduty as he acknowledged.
Audubon,in his Europeanjournal,spokeof "my mother,the only one
I cantruly remember;
andno oneeverhad a better,nor a morelovingone.
Let no onespeakof her as my stepmother.! waseverto her a sonof her
own fleshand blood,and shewasto me a true mother." If suchapparently
spontaneous
statementsare taken to meanwhat they say, they wouldbe
fatal to the theory that Audubonwas the sonof LouisXVI and Marie
Antoinette. In spiteof suchprotestations,
on the otherhand,on August
6, 1826,Audubonwritesin his journal,of plansfor goingto "Nantes to
seemy venerablestepmother,"who had died on October18, 1821;again
in 1828,he spokeof this estimablewomanas if shewere then alive, although she had been dead sevenyears! This seemsto showpretty conclusivelythat Audubonhad for a long time beenout of touchwith his
father'sfamily, althoughonemust think that he had beennotifiedof his
stepmother's
deathsincehe wasa beneficiary
underherwill.
' For the facts concerning Lord Selkirk's life ! am mainly indebted to 'Lord Selkirk's Work
in Canada,' Oxford Historical and Literary Studies, vol. 7. By Chester Martin, Oxford, 1916.
Vol. 541
1937
J
HERRICK,
Audubon
andtheDauphin
491
Vl
For some time I have been in correspondence
with St4phaneAntoine
Foug[re, at one time mayor, and now a judgein the civil courtsof Les
Cayes,a city havingat the presenttime a populationof twenty thousand
souls,and one of the most important seaportsof the Republic of Haiti.
By perpetuationof a eartographiealblunderit is still sometimesdesignated
"Aux Cayes,"whichmeansliterally "at the keys" or Cays.
In a recent letter Dr. D. F. Rafferty says: "At the beginningof the
World War I was orderedto Haiti, and stationedat Les Cayes,in charge
of a French hospital. A friend sent me your bookon Audubon . . . ,
and after reading it
I loaned the book to Mr. Uriah Cardozo,
who returned it to me with the comment that the author had not mentioned
the fact that Audubon was actually born aboard a schoonerin the roadstead of Les Cayes. Apparently the story had some foundation in fact
as it wascommonknowledgeamongthe intelligentsiaof Les Cayes."
The followinginformationrelating to MademoiselleRabin, Audubon's
mother, to her parents, in whom were united the Rabin and Foug[re
families,and to Belony Foug[re, the reputed brother of Jean Jacques
Foug[re Audubon,I give on the authority of JudgeFoug[re,who considershimselfa great-grand-nephew
of Audubon,in directdescentfromBelony
1%ug[re. His knowledgeof his family historycomesfrom his grandfather,
OxilusFoug[re,who died at Les Cayesin 1908,at the ageof eighty-five,
and who had often spokenof his famousuncle, who lived in the United
States,referringof courseto J. J. F. Audubon. If the naturalistwere correct in speakingof havinghad two (or three) olderbrothers,he was mistaken in thinkingthat all of them had been"killed in the wars," for Belony
survivedand his descendants
are livingin Les Cayestoday.
Audubon'smother,accordingto thisaccount,camefrom two well-known,
land-owningfamilies,the Rabins and the Foug[res,who held estatesrespeetivelyin the northern and southernparts of what is now the Haitian
Republic. Thesetracts still bear thesefamily names,in accordwith the
Frenchcustomof namingsectionsof the publicdomainafter the principal
land-owners,
and are somarkedon the mapstoday. JudgeFoug[re,who
has kindly investigatedthis matter for me, found that in S. Rouzier's
'Geographical
and AdministrativeGuideBookof Haiti,' the Rabin division
in the north is situated in the fourth rural section of the Commune of Port-
de-Paix,andtheFoug[resectionin the districtof Miragoanein thesouthern
part of the country. Her father, M. Rabin, is said to have objectedso
strenuouslyto his daughter'sconsortingwith Captain Jean Audubon,a
married man, that she insisted on having her children by him bear the
patronym,not of that irate parent, but of her mother,who waspresumably
492
I-•ERRICK,
Audubon
andtheDauphin
[Auk
LOct.
morecomplacent.PerhapsAudubon'searly dislikeof the Rabinnamemay
be tracedto the opposition
expressed
by hismother,but thisis purelyspeculative.
Mr. Arthur, in his careful biography,has reversedthe names of the
parentsof Audubon'smother, givingFoug[re as the father'sname. Since
both of us have derived our information from the same source,I have
recentlyappealedto JudgeFoug[reto settlethis questionif possible,
and
he has written me under date of May 22, 1937, as follows: "If I have
written to Mr. Arthur that Mlle. Rabin wasprobablyRabin by her mother,
and Foug[reby her father, it may havebeendueto a lapsuscalami
nevertheless
this false belief has been practicedby the Foug•re family for
a goodlongtime. I have beenlately positivelyconvincedof the fact that
Mlle. RabinwasFoug•reby hermother,throughexplanations
receivedfrom
a near relative. As to whether the Mademoisellewas Foug[re by her
motheror her father is, in my opinion, a matter of no real importance.
What is of the utmost consequence
to know is that the Foug[re of
Audubon'sbaptismalnamecamefrom one of the grandparentson his
mother's side."
Belony Foug[re, Audubon'solder brother and Judge Foug[re's greatgrandfather,accordingto the family recordswhich I am now following,
marriedFrancined'Obeent(or d'Opsant)Dumont,who was the ownerof
the largerural sectionof 'Dumont' in the districtof Les Cayes. He worked
as a planter, at one time taught school,and alsoset up as a shoemaker.
Belony had two sons,Ozilusand Tib[re, and four daughters,B61omine,
Teleila, Dulcinette and Elmirene. Louis JosephSimon,a sonof Telcila,
and now living at Les Cayes,was at one time GeneralHaitien Consulat
New York. Belony spenthis early life at Les Cayes,but later lived at
J4r4mie where he died.
OxilusFoug[re, nephewof Audubon,and grandfatherof JudgeFoug[re,
to continuethis account,was a physicianand alsohad a pharmacyat Les
Cayes. He had three sons,Antoine, father of Judge Foug[re, Fenimore
and Marc, and a daughter,Marie. Antoinewas a pharmacistof the first
classat the University of Paris, and a former housesurgeonin that city,
with the degreeof lieentiatein medicine. Fenimorewasa physicianand
assistantsurgeonin the Frencharmy in 1870. Both Antoineand Fenimore
were in Paris seventeenyears. Somehave thought that the name of La
Fortt, or La Forest, which Audubonadoptedand usedfor a time in his
early life was a fancifulone,but accordingto JudgeFoug[re, as noticedby
Mr. Arthur, Mlle. d'Obeent-Dumont,who became the wife of Belony
Foug[re, was a descendantof a family bearing that name, and having
plantationsat Jtr4mie. The Laforestsliving there today all have colored
blood.
Vol. 54]
1937J
HERRICK,
Audubon
andtheDauphin
493
VII
If Audubon had been the son of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette, is it
possibleto believethat he wouldhave beensent to Paris, presumablyin
1802,whenthe worldhad been"on fire with hispursuit,"to studyunder
JaequesLouis David, famousartist and Conventionalregicide,who had
voted to send his father to the guillotine,who had visited him when a
prisonerin the Tower, presumablywith the intentionof paintingor drawing his portrait, and who had actually sketchedthe pathetiefigureof his
own brave mother when on her way to the scaffold? This referenceto
Marie Antoinettesuggests
anothercritical seenein the life of this young
queen,who had grown old while still in her thirties. On that desolate
winter'smorningof January 21, 1793, in Paris, in an upper room of the
Templars'Tower, were gathereda striekenmother,the PrincessElizabeth,
familiafly known as "aunt Babet," the two royal children,Marie Th6r[se
Charlotte,and MonsieurCharles,the Dauphinof France,in the presence
only of their two watehdogs,the eommissioners
who were daily detailed
from the Convention,and their faithful pantry boy, Turgy. In a set of
significantquestionswhichthis sameyouth, in later yearswhengrownto
manhood,had sent to the spuriouspretender,"Charlesde Navarre," in
1817,wasthis:"What tookplaeeonJanuary21,whenthe cannonwere
heardin that upperroom? What did your aunt say at that instant,and
what unusualthing wasdonefor you?" No answerto thesequestions
was
ever received,and it is safeto say that not oneof the numerousclaimants
to havingbeenthat little boy,--no morethan JohnJamesAudubon,whoat
that very time, accordingto his own written statements,was living at
Nantes, under the roof of his father and devotedstepmother,--eouldhave
met this test with any better sueeess.Audubonwasnot LouisCharles!
As far as anyonenow knows,Turgy neveransweredhis own query,but
we may surmisethat the mother and aunt embracedthe ehild, and said
perhapsthe traditionalthing: "Louis Charles,the King, your father, is
dead:longlive the new king,his sonl" Very likely they tried to explainto
him the newpositionin whichhe andthey werenowplaced. The Dauphin
was then not quite eight years old, having been born on Easter Day,
Mareh 27, 1785,and Audubonwasabout a monthyounger.
I have stated a numberof facts and eireumstanees
whichweighstrongly
againstthe idea that Jean JaequesFougbreAudubonwas Louis Charles,
the Dauphin,and later, by right of inheritance,LouisXVII, King of France;
but there is anothereonsideration,
that of physicalmarksuponthe body,
that is evenmoreimportant,and oughtdefinitelyto settlethe question.
Thoseclosest
to the Dauphinknewof eertainmarksuponhisbodywhich
taken togethereouldidentifyhim with absoluteeertainty. Thesewere (1)
vaccinationmarkson both arms, (2) a searover the left eye, and another
494
•mcK, Audubon
andtheDauphin
[Auk
rock.
on the right sideof the nose,and (3) a deformedright ear, whichhad its
lower lobe excessively
enlarged. The first two wereunimportantbecause
they couldbe easilyproduced.EleazarWilliamsor any otherspuriouspretender might, and sometimesdid, point to suchsearsin the right places,
but the deformed
ear wasa physicalcharacterwhichcouldnot be imitated.
There wasthen no plasticsurgeryin Franceof that day whichcouldeither
remove or producesuch a blemish without trace. This defect was never
generallyknown, and probablyactually known to but very few, if any,
outsidethe royal family; and no wondersincethe boy Dauphin,as seenin
life and in his portraits,had alwaysappearedwith long locks,bangedand
hangingdownoverhisears,whichthey completelyconcealed;
andno doubt
his fond parentswere quite willing that his tressesshouldhide such an
abnormality. It wasa bodilymark that tripped many a brazenpretender
in the eyesof the knowing.
Did anyoneever noticethat John JamesAudubonhad a deformedright
ear? Not sofar as is known,and his numerousportraitsgiveno suggestion
of it. If Audubon'sright ear was normal, as he and other artists representedit to be,he wasnot LouisXVII. Had Audubonpossessed
sucha
deformitywouldhe haveconsented
to the sacrifice
of his 'ambrosial'
locks
in Edinburgh,on March 19, 18277
VIII
There is probablyno parallelin historyto the Dauphin 'racket,' whleh
beganin Franceshortlyafter the reputeddeathof Louis Charles,lasted
for the betterpart of a century,andthe reverberations
of it arefelt evento
this day. The causeswhich led to such an extraordinarysuccession
of
eventsdonot seemto haveeverbeenduplicatedin eitherancientor modern
times,
Within five years after the death of the Dauphin, as recordedin the
Temple'sarchives,sevenboys,all elMmingto have beenLouisXVII, had
alreadycometo the attentionof the Frenchpolice. Soonthey kept bobbing
up overnight,here, there, and everywhere,and sometimestwo were circulatingin the countryat the sametime. Three who madesuchfraudulent
elMms,wereliving at one time or anotherin the United Statesor Canada.
One of these, Eleazar Williams, I shall speakof later. The Dauphin's
sister once remarked, when the number of those claiming to be her lost
brother,had reachedtwenty-seven,that shebelievedevery one of them to
be false. Fifty yearsafter the reporteddeathof LouisCharles,the number
of thoseelMmingto be, or who believed,or who imaginedthemselvesto be,
that prince,had risento forty, and somehave estimatedthat the roll of
dishonestclaimantshas by now touchedthe seventiethmark! They were
an assortedcollectionof near lunatics, unstablepersonswith insistent
¾01. 54]
1937
J
•
HERRICK,
Audubon
andtheDauphin
495
ideas such as delusionsof grandeur or plain monomaniacs,mendacious
liars,cleverforgers,generalswindlersor adventurers,and pioushypocrites.
What did they expectto gain by suchfraudulentclaims? Probablynot a
diademor kingly crownin mosteases,but moneyand giftsof varioussorts
from the credulous,a shareperhapsof the large private fortune of the
sisterof the Dauphin, and aboveall public acclaimand notoriety. The
shrewdestforgersor the most consistentand accomplished
liars did often
obtainsomeof thesethings,suchas jewels,coinof the realm,and a chance
to live for a time at leastin luxury. Severalwrotefietltiousmemoirs,and
many figuredin the law courts,when they often drew fines and prison
sentences.Their claimswereusuallythrownout of court,but if they were
banishedfrom the countrythey werecertainto turn up againin the same
rgle somewhere else.
Probably no boy in the world's history, whoselife, or that part of it
aboutwhichanythingis definitelyknown,extendedto only ten years,two
monthsand two days,to followthe Tower recordagain,hashad somany
biographers,so many impersonators,
or who has been pronounceddead
and buried so many times, and in so many differentplaces. Under such
circumstances
it is not surprisingthat the bibliography
! of thisunfortunate
princehas extendedto extraordinaryproportions. Over a hundredyears
after the reporteddeath of the Dauphin a monthly publication,'Revue
I-Iistoriquede la QuestionLouisXVII,' wasstartedin Paris, and its editor
beganhis addressto his prospective
readerswith a quotationfrom Renan:
"I fear," said Renan, "that the work of the twentieth century will but
consistof retrievingfrom the wastebasket a multitude of excellentideas
whichthe nineteenthcenturyhad heedlessly
thrown away. The survival
of LouisXVII, after leavingthe prisonof the Temple,isoneof theseideas."
This journal lasted until 1911 when six volumeshad been completed.
Moreover,this was publishedto continuethe work of anotherperiodical,
Bulletin de la 'Soci•t• d'Etudes sur la QuestionLouis XVII,' which had a
life of twenty-threeyears.
Therewasa shrewdadventurer,whosuddenlyappearedin 1830,coming
apparentlyfrom nowhere,and passingunder the Germanname of Karl
Wilhelm Naundorff, in recent times identified,though not with complete
certainty,as Carl BenjaminWerg. After a long and checkeredeareeLhe
was thrown out of France, and went to England, where he invented a
bomb that was operatedby clockwork. Failing to interest the English
in his invention,he startedfor Hollandin 1845with a passportbearingthe
name of "Charles Louis de Bourbon." Being detainedat Rotterdam, the
questionof admittinghim soonbecameone of internationaldiplomacy
• William W. Wight, in his 'Louis X¾II: A Bibliography,' Boston. 1915, lists 478 titles,
and these were strictly limited to material found in his own library.
496
HERR•c•:,
Audubon
andtheDauphin
[Auk
tOct.
betweenFranceand Holland. The Dutch appearto havewantedhisbomb,
and havinglittle likingfor CharlesX, the Frenchking,the matter dragged
over five monthsand endedin a compromise.The Frenchwere willing to
have the name "CharlesLouis" appearin the doeument,--theDauphin's
name being "Louis Charles,"--and for all they caredthe bomb couldbe
called"the Bourbonbomb," but they wouldnot go a step farther. This
was held, but on insufiqeient
grounds,as a tacit admissionthat the Naundorff family was entitled to use the Bourbonname. The agreementwas
signedon June 20, 1845, and Naundorff,who had goneto Delft, was dead
of typhoid fever lessthan two monthslater.
In 1851, the Naundorff family tried to get from the French Government
an acknowledgmentof their claim to the use of the Bourbonname, but
without success,
and they appealedagainstthis verdictin 1874,but lost
again. Finally in 1911, the Naundorff descendants
made a third attempt
at havingtheir claimof beingscionsof LouisXVI acknowledged
in France,
but were again denied,and there the matter now stands. Naundorffhad
neither the physiognomynor the physicalmarks of the Dauphin, but
manybelievedthat he wasratherbetterthan the averagerun of pretenders.
Minnigerode,
x whom I have followedin this statementof the Naundorff
ease,is undoubtedlyright in sayingthat the admission,
wrungfrom France
by the Dutch in 1845,wasonewhichno Frenchcourt for a momentwould
have allowed. Nevertheless,Naundorffwas buried with honorsof royalty
at Delft, and his monument there bears this inscription: "Louis XVII,
roi de Franceet de Navarre (CharlesLouisdue de Normandie)."
IX
A muchmore difficultsubjectto understandthan the I-Iervagaults,the
Riehemontsor the Naundorffs,is the psychology
of an Americanpretender
to royalty, Eleazar Williams, one-timemissionaryto the Indians. It is a
pity that Gamaliel Bradford never psyehoanalyzed
him. He had no
criminalrecord,but was a teacheramongthe Indiansfor many years,and
BishopHobart, of New York, ordainedhim to the ministryof the Protestant
EpiscopalChurch, and baptisedhis Indian wife, giving her the name of
Mary Hobart. Williams translated the Book of Common Prayer and
numeroushymnsinto the Iroquoislanguage,and at GreenBay, Wisconsin,
started a school for half-breed Indian children.
This was maintained until
1823,whenhe marriedoneof his pupils. In 1839,Williamsis saidto have
eordldedto a Buffalo editor that he was the real Dauphin of France, and
ten years later an article, supposedto have been written or inspired by
Williams himself, appearedin the 'United States DemocraticReview' in
• See Meade Minnigerode:
Tower,' New York, 1934.
'The Son of Marie
Antoinette:
the Mystery
of the Temple
Vol. 1541
1937J
I-IERRICK,
Audubon
andtheDauphin
497
which his definiteclaim to royalty was made public. Meantime Williams
repeatedhisstoryto anyonewhowouldlisten,but the widespread
notoriety,
after which he had evidently been striving, camewith the publicationin
'Putnam's Monthly Magazine' for February, 1853, of an article entitled
"Have we a Bourbonamongus?"by the Rev. John H. Hanson. Hanson
corresponded
with Williams,visitedhim, travelledwith him, and became
suchan enthusiastic
supporterof his causethat he wrote his biography,a
volumeof nearly five hundredpages,publishedin 1854. Hanson was an
idealist,without a particleof criticaljudgment,and believingin the unimpeachable
integrityof hishero,he accepted
withoutquestion
all of hisyarns
howeveramazingor impossible.I can relate but oneof thesewhichcame
out in a conversation
with Hanson,who saidin effect:"Before you left the
Temple,at the age of ten you must have storedup in your mind many
vivid memorypicturesof extraordinaryevents,someof which you will be
able to recall. Now I wish you would describesomeof them." "A most
remarkablefact," replied the self-styledLouis XVII, "is that up to the
ageof thirteenor fourteenmy mind is like a blank page;nothingis written
on it. Consciousness
seemsto havebeenimperfector entirelylacking,and
at that early periodI was practicallyan idiot. Then, this strangething
happened:onesummer'sday, whenI wasbathingwith a numberof Indian
boys,my friends,in the watersof Lake George,in my foolishway I climbed
a highrockoverthe waterand dived. The shockrenderedme unconscious,
but my boy friendsdraggedme out, and when I was graduallyrestoredto
consciousness,
I was a changedperson. My mind was given back to me,
and the eventswhich had happenedin my earlier years in Paris were recalled. Picturesof soldiersand greatpersonages
werethere, and there was
a hard, cruelface,whichI seemedto recognizewith a start, as I suddenly
cameuponit when on a steamboat,or upon enteringa train. I think what
startlesme must be the resemblance
to my evil guardianof an early day,
Simon, the cobbler? Intelligent peopleprobably knew as well then as
they know now that a sharpblow upon the head is not conduciveto an
improvementin mentality. The Rev. Mr. Hansonshouldhaveremembered
the Old Testamentproverb: "Though thou shouldestbray a fool in a
mortaramongwheatwith a pestle,yet will not his foolishness
departfrom
him."
Williams told Hanson that the Prince de Joinville,sonof Louis Philippe,
cameto GreenBay and tried to get him to signan abdicationof his rights
to the French throne. When this was denouncedin France as a pure
fabrication,Williamssaidto Hanson:"I do not troublemyselfmuchabout
the matter.
My story is on the wingsof heaven,and will work
its way without me.
God in His providencemust have some
mysteriousendsto answer,or He wouldneverhavebroughtme solow from
498
H•aa•cK,
Audubon
andtheDauphin
[Auk
LOct.
sucha height.
I donot want a crown.I am convinced
of my regal
descent;soaremy family. The ideaof royaltyis in our minds,and we will
not relinquishit. You have beentalking to a king to-night." They were
then on a steamboat,approaching
Burlington,Vermont.
In concludinghis article on "The BourbonQuestion,"a sequelto the
oneto whichI have referred,Hansonsaid: "To thosewho have charitably
attributed to me the originationof a moonhoax! to sell a magazine,or the
credulityof adoptingthe baseless
tale of a monomaniacI reply
that I am contentto leavethe easeto speakfor itself, quite satisfiedwith
the approbationof those,neitherfew, nor stupid,nor credulous,who entertainwith me the strongest
convictionof the highprobabilitythat beneath
the romanceof incidencethere is here the rocky substratumof indestructible fact."
Eleazar Williams said that his story would work its way without him.
It has, but has taken a differentcoursefrom what he would have chosen,
especiallysincethe historiansof the Universityof Wisconsinmadeit their
businessto investigatehis life history. It has been definitely established
that Eleazar Williams was a half-breed Indian, son of Thomas Williams
and Mary Ann Kenewatsenri.Thomaswasa grandson
of EuniceWilliams,
who wasa daughterof JohnWilliams, minister at Deerfield,Massachusetts.
She was capturedin 1784 in a French and Indian raid, was married to an
Indian chief of Caughnawaga,and her descendents
all bore the Williams
name. In 1824 Eleazar gave Sault St. Louis (Caughnawaga,Canada),as
his birthplace,but he publiclymaintainedthe fictionof beingLouisXVII
up to his deathin 1858.
Eleazar Williams standsin a classby himselfamongthe better-known
pretendersto royalty in relationto Louis Charles. Why did this minister
and missionaryworkerchooseto lead a life of duplicity? His dishonesty
broughthim no monetaryrewards. His greatestweaknessseemsto have
been an inordinate vanity. His bold claims and those of his credulous
friends,whodid not knowhim any too well, madehim a markedman and
whereverhe wentinterestin him wasaroused. If he preachedin a country
church,that wasan eventto be remembered.In a recentlypublishedwork
on 'Old Historic Churchesof America'thereis pictureda churchat Longmeadow, Massachusetts,"with which," it was stated "is associatedthe
romanticstoryof EleazarWilliams,believedby many to have beenLouis
XVII,
of France."
x
What shallbe saidof the conjectures
of Mrs. Tyler on this crudeWilliams
hoax? "There is a persistentrumor in Canada,"saysMrs. Tyler, "that
• Referring to the story in 'The (New York) Sun,' of August 25, 1835, sometimes called
the greatest scientific fraud ever perpetrated, purporting to have been written by Sir John
Herschel, but now believed to be the work of a clever reporter, Richard Adams Locke.
Vol. 541
1937
J
HERRICK,
Audubon
andtheDauphin
499
the Dauphin lived there. When a legend of this kind lives through a
century,it usuallyhas somebasisin fact, as is now seen[the basisbeing
that Audubon was Louis XVII,
and as suchhad lived in Canada]. And
thismay evenaccountfor the storyof the 'mythicalWilliamsboy,' whowas
missionaryto the Indians,for Audubon'sreligiouslife wasdeeplyspiritual,
and he may have usedhis stay in Canada to this end; and the Williams
boy's mother,Mrs. Williams, is reputedto be the indomitableand indefatigableLady Atkyns, who gave Marie Antoinetteher pledgethat she
wouldneverstoptill shehad savedher son,Louis17th. It may be that
Lady Atkyns'spledgewasthus fulfilled."
What a strangedenouemont! Audubon,at the age of eleven, giving
spiritual comfortto North AmericanIndians, whomhe had never seen,in
'Selkirk'sSettlements,'which did not then exist, and in a country which
he had nevervisited! What, I wonder,wouldLady Atkynshave thought,
Walpole born, whosehusbandhad been a Norfolk baronet, after all her
moneyhad beenthrownto the windsin a vain, if worthy, cause,of being
the reputedmotherof a half-breedAmericanIndian, and a piousimposter
at that? Would not the ardent biographerof that "Williams boy," who
protestedthat he was not startinga moonhoax, be equallysurprisedto
knowhowmuchmoonshine
therewasin his wholestory?
Audubon'slife wasromanticenough. He doesnot needany falsehalo
of royalty. He can stand on his own feet.
ArrEawoaD.--When we considerthe fietee partisanshipengendered
during the Revolution,and the widebreachbetweenwhat contemporaries
spokeor wrote, and what they really thoughtor believed,the testimonyof
eye-witnesses
to eventsin or about the Templemust be considered
most
untrustworthy. Moreover, the failure after one hundredand forty years
of hot debateto throw any dear light on the ultimatefate of the Dauphin
tends more and more to convinceus that he was "lost" only in the sense
that he had died. If this be the hard truth, what could be more vain than
refuting the claimsof pretendersor their descendants?
Cleveland
Heights
Ohio