Читать книгу: «Notes and Queries, Number 206, October 8, 1853», страница 5

PHOTOGRAPHIC CORRESPONDENCE

Stereoscopic Angles.—As I presume that Mr. T. L. Merritt is, like myself, only desirous of arriving at truth, I beg to offer the following reply to his last communication (Vol. viii., pp. 275-6.), in which he misinterprets some observations of mine upon the subject in question.

With regard to the distance quoted by me of 2¼ inches, I look upon it as the same thing as intended by Mr. Merritt—that is, the average distance between the centres of the eyes; and it amounts simply to a difference of opinion between us; but, so far as that point is concerned, I am quite ready to adopt 2½ inches as a standard, although I believe that the former is nearer the truth: however, I require more than a mere assertion that "the only correct space for the cameras to be apart is 2½ inches, and this under every circumstance, and that any departure from this must produce error." I quote verbatim, having merely Italicised three words to point my meaning more clearly. An object being 5 feet distant, and another at 10 feet from the observer, a line between the eyes will subtend a very much larger angle in the former than in the latter instance: hence the inclination of the axes of the eyes is the chief criterion by which people with the usual complement of those useful organs judge of proximity: but if half a dozen houses are made to appear as if 10 or 12 feet distant (by means of the increase of the angle between the points of formation of the pictures), while the angle which each picture subtends is relatively small; it is clear that both eyes will see in relief at a short distance half a dozen houses in a space not large enough for a single brick of one of them, and, consequently, the view will appear as if taken from a model. Mr. Merritt will object that an erroneous effect is produced; if he will refer to my statement (Vol. viii., p. 228.), he will find that it is precisely what I admitted; and he appears to have overlooked the proviso attached to my next observation (judging by his comment thereon), so I shall make no farther remark upon that point, beyond inquiring why the defect he is content to put up with is called a trifling exaggeration, while that which is less offensive to me is designated as absolute deformity and error? Persons with one eye are not good judges of distance, and this may be easily tested thus:—Close one eye, and endeavour to dip a pen in an inkstand at some little distance not previously ascertained by experiment, with both eyes open; it will be found far less easy than would be imagined. One-eyed people, from habit, contrive to judge of distance mainly by relative position, and by moving the head laterally cause a change therein: to them, all pictures are, to an extent, stereoscopic.

I am really amazed that my advocacy of the radial, instead of the parallel, position of the cameras should have been so misunderstood. Surely, it cannot be seriously asserted that the former will produce two vanishing points, and the latter only one? And as to the supposition connected with the boy, the ass, and the drum, a camera that would produce the effect of showing both sides of the ass, both legs of the boy, and both heads of the drum, with a movement of only 2½ inches, whether radially or parallel, would indeed be a curiosity. But if the motion of the camera extended over a space sufficiently large to exhibit the phenomena alluded to, then it would confirm what I have before advanced, viz. present the idea of a small model of the objects, which could be so placed as to show naturally these very effects.

That the axes of the eyes are inclined when viewing objects, is readily proved thus:—Let a person look across the road at any object—say a shop-window; but stand so that a lamp-post near him shall intervene, and be in a direct line between the observer's nose and the object viewed. If he be requested to observe the post instead of the distant object, the pupils of his eyes will be seen to approach one another; and on again looking to the distant object, will instantly recede. The range of vision is another point that appears to be misunderstood, as we are differing about words instead of facts. The column is an illustration that will exactly suit my views; for I call the range of vision the same if taken from side to side of the column, although it is perfectly true that the tangents to the two eyes differ by the angle they subtend: but certainly Mr. Wilkinson's case (Vol. viii., p. 181.) of seven houses and five bathing-machines in one picture, and five houses and eight machines in the other, illustrates an instance where the range of vision is not the same; but I contend that the stereoscopic effect is then confined to five houses and five machines, otherwise Mr. Wilkinson's supposititious case (ibid.), of all machines in one, and all houses in the other, might be considered as stereoscopic.

In concluding this very lengthened and, I fear, tedious reply, I beg to assert that I am most willing to recant any proposition I may have put forth, if proved to be erroneous; but I must have proof, not mere assertion. And farther, my willing thanks are always tendered to any one kind enough to correct an error.

Geo. Shadbolt.

Mr. Pumphrey's Process for securing black Tints in Positives.—The importance that appears to be attached by some of thy correspondents to the stereoscopic appearance of photographs, induces me to call the attention of those who may not have noticed it to the fact that, as all camera pictures are monocular, they are best seen by closing one eye, and then they truly represent nature; and the effect of distance (which so often appears wanting in photographs) is given with marvellous effect, so well indeed as to render the use of a stereoscope unnecessary. Like other photographers, I have been long seeking for a method, easy, cheap, and certain, for obtaining the black tints that are so highly prized by many in the French positives; and having at last attained the object of my search, I lose no time in laying it before my fellow-operators.

I obtain these results with a twenty-grain solution of nitrate of silver, a fact that will, I think, commend the plan to most operators. Thou wilt be able to judge of the result from the inclosed specimen.⁷ I use Canson's paper, either albumenized or plain (but the former is far preferable). If albumen is used, I dilute it with an equal measure of water, and add half a grain of common salt (chloride of sodium) to each ounce of the mixture. This is applied to the paper with a soft flat brush, and all bubbles removed, by allowing a slender stream of the mixture to flow over its surface: it is then hung up to dry, and afterwards the albumen is coagulated with a hot iron. If the paper is used plain, a solution of common salt (half a grain to one ounce of water) is placed in a shallow tray, and the paper floated on its surface for a minute, and then hung up to dry. Excite, in either case, with an ammonio-nitrate of silver solution (twenty grains to one ounce of water), by floating the paper, prepared side downwards, for one minute, and hang up to dry.

Print tolerably strongly, and the proof will be of a reddish-brown. Fix in tolerably strong solution of hypo. sodæ (I never weigh my hypo., so cannot give the proportion), that either has been in use some time, or else, if new, has been nearly saturated with darkened chloride of silver. When fixed, remove the proofs into another vessel of the same solution of hypo., to which has been added chloride of gold and acetic acid. The way I do this is to dissolve one drachm of chloride of gold in two and a half ounces (1200 minims) of water. Of this I take twenty minims (which will contain one grain Au Cl₃) and forty minims of acetic acid (Beaufoy's) for every dozen proofs (of the size of 7 × 9 in.), that I mean to operate on, and having mixed the gold and acetic acid with the solution of hypo., place the proofs in it till they attain the desired colour: they are then to be washed and dried in the usual way.

Knowing that so cheap and easy a process for obtaining these tints would have been a great boon to me a short time since, I lose no time in communicating this to the readers of "N. & Q." I shall feel a pleasure in explaining the plan more in detail to any photographer who may feel disposed to drop me a line.

William Pumphrey.

Osbaldwick, near York.

Replies to Minor Queries

Baskerville the Printer (Vol. viii., p. 203.).—In reply to Mr. Elliott's inquiry, I beg to say that Baskerville the printer was merely named as one who had directed his interment in unconsecrated ground. The exact place of his burial was not deemed a point of importance, but it having been questioned, I am able to state that the spot was correctly described by me. Nichols, in his Literary Anecdotes (vol. viii. p. 456.), tells us that "Baskerville was buried in a tomb of masonry, in the shape of a cone, under a windmill in his garden; on the top of this windmill, after it fell into disuse, he had erected an urn, and had prepared an inscription," of which Mr. Elliott has given a portion.

In his will, dated January 6, 1773, he directs his body "to be buried in a conical building heretofore used as a mill, which I have lately raised higher, and painted and prepared for it." It seems somewhat surprising that one, who shocked even John Wilkes as "a terrible infidel," should have printed a most beautiful folio Bible, at an expense of 2000l., and three or more editions of the Book of Common Prayer. Still more, in 1762, he tells Walpole that he had a grant from the University of Cambridge to print their 8vo. and 12mo. Common Prayer Books, and that for this privilege he laboured under heavy liabilities to the University. Baskerville doubtless regarded these books with a tradesman's eye, indifferent to the subjects of the works issued from his press, provided they sold. It would, however, be very unjust to this admirable printer to name him without praise for the distinguished beauty of his typography: it was clear and elegant, and he was most curious in the choice both of his paper and ink.

J. H. M.

Lines on Woman (Vol. viii., p. 204.).—The four beautiful lines which W. V. cites are the conclusion of a poem entitled "Woman," written by Eton Barrett. About the close of the last century, Eton Barrett and his younger brother Richard Barrett were at a private school on Wandsworth Common. My brothers and I were their schoolfellows. The Barretts were Irish boys; I think (but I speak very doubtfully) from Cork. Eton Barrett was a boy of more than ordinary talent. He was a genius among the lesser lights around him. I remember his writing a play with prologue and epilogue, which was performed before the master and his family, &c., with so much success, that the master prohibited any future dramatic performances, fearing, that he might incur blame for encouraging too much taste for the theatre. Our master gave up his school before the year 1800. Eton Barrett, a great many years ago, published a little volume of poems, of which "Woman" was one. I do not remember that I ever met him since our school-days. I have heard that he adopted Tory politics in Ireland, and that his brother attached himself to O'Connell, and conducted some newspaper; but this is mere report. Allow me to take this opportunity for observing, that many of the communications to "N. & Q.," such as those in which matters of fact are stated, ought, it may justly be urged, to be authenticated by the signature of the contributor. I feel the truth of this so strongly, that, though I do not sign my name, yet I have thought it right to make myself known to you, so that you know the person who contributes under the signature

F. W. J.

Haulf-naked (Vol. viii., p. 205.).—The manor house of Halnaker, adjoining Walberton and Goodwood, is thus spoken of by Dallaway in his Hist. of Sussex, "Rape of Chichester," p. 131.:—"Halnaker, called in Domesday 'Halneche,' and in writings of very ancient date Halnac, Halnaked, and Halfnaked." Then follows a short description of the old manor-house.

It has been lately visited by the Archæological Association, under the direction of Lord Talbot de Malahide; and it is probable that the industrious antiquaries of Sussex will soon give us a more detailed account of it in their next volume of Transactions.

M. (2.)

Cambridge and Ireland (Vol. viii., p. 270.).—The story of Irish merchants landing at Cambridge is "very like a whale," "touched upon the deserts of Bohemia." I think, however, that I can trace the source of this glaring and oft-repeated error, as there really exists a documentary connexion between Irish cloth and the town of Cambridge.

Referring to a collection of notes on the ancient commerce and manufactures of Ireland, which I have lately made, I find—cited as an instance of the general use of Irish cloth in England at an early period—that Henry IV., in 1410, gave a royal grant of tolls, for the purpose of paving the town of Cambridge; in which, among other articles, Irish cloth is taxed at the rate of twopence per hundred. The grant, "De villa Cantabrigiæ paveanda," will be found in Rymer's Fœdera.

W. Pinkerton.

Ham.

Autobiographical Sketch (Vol. vii., p. 477.).—The fragments found by Cheverells are parts of The Library of Useless Knowledge, by Athanasius Gasker, Esq., F.R.S., &c.: London, W. Pickering, 1837.

H. J.

Archbishop Chichely (Vol. viii., p. 198).—The Statute Book of All Souls College; Robert Hoveden's Life of Chichely; and the respective Lives by Arthur Duck and O. L. Spencer, have all been examined for the date of Henry Chichely's birth, but without success.

The most probable conjecture is, that he was born in 1362; since in 1442 (see his "Letter to Pope Eugenius," printed in the Appendix to Spencer's Life) he describes himself as having either completed or entered upon his eightieth year.

Edward F. Rimbault.

"Discovery of the Inquisition" (Vol. viii., p. 137.).—It is a mistake to suppose that all John Day's publications are rare. Montanus's Discovery and playne Declaration of sundry subtill Practices of the Holy Inquisition of Spayne, newly translated, 4to., 1568, is not uncommon. Herbert and Heber possessed copies; and a copy sold at Saunders's in 1818 for five shillings. My own copy (a remarkably fine one) cost sixteen shillings at Evans's in 1840. The edition of 1569, containing some additions, is of greater rarity.

Edward F. Rimbault.

Divining Rod (Vol. viii., p. 293.).—In the first edition of his Mathematical Recreations, Hutton laughed at the divining rod. In the interval between that and the second edition, a lady made him change his note, by using one before him at Woolwich. Hutton had the courage to publish the account of the experiment in the second edition (vol. iv. pp. 216-231.), after the account he had previously given. By a letter from Hutton to Bruce, printed in the memoir of the former which the latter wrote, it appears that the lady was Lady Milbanke.

M.

"Pinece with a stink" (Vol. viii, p. 270.).—Archbishop Bramhall's editor should have spelled the first word pinnace, and then your correspondent Mr. Blakiston could easily have understood the allusion. In speaking of the offensive composition, well known to sailors, the word revenge, and not defend, was used by Bramhall.

R. G.

Longevity (Vol. viii., p. 113.).—I do not think any of your correspondents has noticed the case of John Whethamstede, Abbot of St. Albans, who wrote a Chronicle of the period between 1441 and 1461: "He was ordained a priest in 1382, and died in 1464, when he had been eighty-two years in priest's orders, and was above one hundred years old." Surely this is a case sufficiently authenticated for your more sceptical readers. (Henry's History of Great Britain, 2nd ed., Lond. 1788, vol. x. p. 132.)

Tewars.

Chronograms (Vol. viii., pp. 42. 280.).—The following additional specimen of this once popular form of numerical puzzle is not, I think, unworthy a corner in "N. & Q."

On the upper border of a sun-dial, affixed to the west end of Nantwich Church, Cheshire, there appeared, previous to its removal about 1800, the undermentioned inscription:

"Honor DoMIno pro paCe popVLo sVo parta."

Now, seeing that Nantwich was, during the civil dissensions which culminated in the murder of Charles I., a rampant hot-bed of anarchy and rebellion, we should hardly be prepared for such a complete repudiation of those principles as is conveyed in the line before us, did we not know that the same anxiety to get rid of the "Bare-bones" incubus universally prevailed. The numerals, it will be seen, make up the number 1661, which was the year of the coronation of King Charles II.; and, no doubt, also the year in which the dial in question was erected.

T. Hughes.

Chester.

Heraldic Notes (Vol. viii., p. 265.).—The bearing of the arms of Clare Hall by Dr. Blythe is not strictly correct, because, with the exception of the three principal Kings of Arms, the Earl Marshal, the Master of Ordnance, and a few others especially, arms of office do not exist in England. The general mode of bearing them is by impalement, giving the preference (dexter) to the arms of dignity. In the example under notice, the arms of dignity or office are borne upon a pile, which has somewhat the appearance of an inverted chevron. It is not at all a common mode of bearing additions; but I remember one case, viz. the grant by King Henry VIII. to the Seymours, after his marriage to Lady Jane, of the lions of England on a pile.

Broctuna.

Bury, Lancashire.

Christian Names (Vol. vii. passim).—May I be permitted to correct one or two errors in Mr. Bates's Note on this subject, Vol. vii. p. 627.?

The person described as a "certain M. L-P. Saint-Florentin" was no less a person than the Duke de la Vrillière, who filled several important offices during the reign of Louis XV. The allusion in the epigram to his "trois noms" has no reference to his names, whether Christian or patronymic, in the sense in which the question has been discussed in "N. & Q.," but to the three titles which he successively bore as a public man. He commenced his career as M. de Phélippeaux; was afterwards created Comte de Saint-Florentin, and sometime before his death was raised to the dignity of Duke de la Vrillière.

My authority for this statement is the cotemporary work, Les Mémoires secrets de Bachaumont, where, under date of December, 1770, the epigram is thus introduced, with a variation in the first line:

"Un autre plaisant a fait d'avance l'épitaphe de M. le duc de la Vrillière. Elle roule sur ses trois noms différents de Phélippeaux, Saint-Florentin, et la Vrillière:

 
'Ci-git, malgré son rang, un homme fort commun,
Ayant porté trois noms, et n'en laissant aucun.'"
 

The sense being, that his titles had been his only distinction, and that even they had not been sufficient to rescue his character from obscurity and contempt.

However "applicable" this epigram may be to the bearers or borrowers of three names, it will be some comfort to them to know that its point was not directed against them, but against a class of men of much higher pretensions, of one of whom it has been said:

 
"He left the name, at which the world grew pale,
To point a moral, or adorn a tale."
 

Henry H. Breen.

St. Lucia.

"I put a spoke in his wheel" (Vol. viii., p. 269.).—If G.K., being wronged, should cherish the unchristian spirit of revenge, let him playfully insert a spoke in the wheel of his friend's tandem, as it bowls along behind a pair of thorough-bred tits, with twelve months' hard condition upon old oats in them.

By simply putting a spoke in the wheel of the waggon employed in the removal of the Manchester College to London, one trustee opposed a decided "impediment to the movement" of that institution.

W. C.

P. S.—Allow me to point out a misprint at Vol. viii., p. 279, "Manners of the Irish:" for chuse read cheese.

Judges styled Reverend (Vol. viii., pp. 158. 276.).—With respect to the error into which I was led in making Anthony Fitzherbert Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, I beg to express my thanks for our good friend's correction. My statement was founded on the authority of the Visitation-Book of the county of Derby, A.D. 1634, in which Anthony Fitzherbert is "Chief Justice of –;" and, as the question of his rank as a judge was not one at the moment of communicating my Note, I made no farther inquiry. I find, however, upon reference to Vincent's Collections for Derbyshire, that Anthony Fitzherbert is styled, in a very good pedigree of his family, "Unus Justiciariorum de Coī Banco." Had I turned to Dugdale's Origines Juridiciales, the error might have been avoided.

Thos. W. King (York Herald).

Palace at Enfield (Vol. viii., p. 271.).—Queen Elizabeth, in the early part of her reign, frequently kept her court at Enfield. Her palace was the manor-house, near the church, of which little now remains. In Lysons' time (1793) it had been in a great measure rebuilt, and divided into tenements. He adds, "the part which contains the old room is in the occupation of Mrs. Perry."

When I saw this room, about twenty years ago, it was in its original state, with oak panels and a richly ornamented ceiling. The chimney-piece was supported by columns of the Ionic and Corinthian order, and decorated with the cognizances of the rose and portcullis, and the arms of France and England quartered, with the garter and the royal supporters. Underneath was this motto, "Sola salus servire Deo, sunt cætera fraudes."

In the garden was a magnificent tree, a cedar of Libanus, which was pointed out to me as having been planted by Queen Elizabeth. But upon this point tradition was at fault. In the Gentleman's Magazine for 1779, p. 138., may be seen an account of this remarkable cedar, which was planted by Dr. Robert Uvedale, the botanist, a tenant of the manor-house in 1670.

The church at Enfield does not date farther back than the middle of the fifteenth century. The devices of a rose and ring, which occur over the arches of the nave, seen also upon the tower of Hadley Church, with the date 1444, "supposing it to have been, as is very probable," says Lysons, "a punning cognizance adopted by one of the priors of Walden, to which monastery both churches belonged, will fix the building of the present structure at Enfield to the early part of the fifteenth century."

Edward F. Rimbault.

Sir John Vanbrugh (Vol. viii., pp. 65. 160. 232.).—Are not your correspondents on the wrong scent as regards the birthplace of Sir John Vanbrugh? In the memoir prefixed to the collection of his Plays, 2 vols. 12mo., 1759, it is said:

"Sir John Vanbrugh, an eminent dramatic writer, son of Mr. Giles Vanbrugh of London, merchant, was born in the parish of St. Stephen's, Walbrook, in 1666. The family of Vanbrugh were for many years merchants of great credit and reputation at Antwerp, and came into England in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, on account of the persecution for religion."

Mr. Cunningham (Handbook of London, p. 282.) speaks of William Vanderbergh, the supposed father of Sir John, as residing in Lawrence-Poultney Lane in 1677. He refers to Strype's map of Walbrook and Dowgate wards, and A Collection of the Names of the Merchants living in and about the City of London, 12mo. 1677.

The writer of the notice of Sir John Vanbrugh in Chambers' Cyclopædia of English Literature, vol. i. p. 597., says:

"Vanbrugh was the son of a successful sugar-baker, who rose to be an esquire, and comptroller of the treasury chamber, besides marrying the daughter of Sir Dudley Carlton. It is doubtful whether the dramatist was born in the French Bastile, or the parish of St. Stephen's, Walbrook. The time of his birth was about the year 1666, when Louis XIV. declared war against England. It is certain he was in France at the age of nineteen, and remained there some years."

The family vault of the Vanbrughs is certainly in St. Stephen's Church, Walbrook, where Sir John was buried on the 30th of March, 1726.