THE PASSAGE IN KING HENRY VIII., ACT III. SC. 2.

(Vol. vii., pp. 5. 111.)

Having no desire to enter into unnecessary controversy, I do not often reply to objections made to my conjectural emendations of passages in Shakspeare; but on the present occasion I think it incumbent on me to appeal to the common sense of those who take interest in such matters, by merely placing in juxta-position the reading I have proposed, and that of your Leeds correspondent, and thus leave it to their impartial decision without fear of the result. It may be necessary, as your correspondent has adverted to what precedes, to give the passage as it stands in the folio at some length. Wolsey having said—

The King replies:

Wolsey rejoins:

I read:

Your Leeds correspondent would read:

For his arguments I must refer to his note (p. 111. antè), merely observing that I cannot conceive how any alteration in the punctuation of the King's speech could connect it with this! Making That emphatic helps nothing, as there is no antecedent to which it can refer; and if "we can by no means part with have," we must interpolate been after it to make it any way intelligible, to the marring of the verse.

With regard to the substitution of lack for crack in my former note, it should be recollected that I then said "I do not insist upon this." We might, however, substitute slack, if change should be deemed necessary, and it would be still nearer in form to the suspected word.

I may safely leave the palpable error in As You Like It to the decision of common sense.

As I am dealing with corrections in the play of King Henry VIII., I may take occasion to observe that Mr. Collier, in his recent supplemental volume of Notes and Emendations, has, I have no doubt unwittingly, stated that a passage, Act IV. Sc. 2., has been absurdly pointed, "over and over again, from the year 1623 to our own day." Whereas it will be found corrected, exactly as it stands in his second folio, in the edition I gave of Shakspeare in 1826, with a note adverting to the absurdity of the old pointing. I may further add, that the first instance Mr. Collier gives in his preface of the corrections in his folio, is in the same predicament. He has stated that the reading of "Aristotle's cheeks" for "Aristotle's ethics," in the first scene of the Taming of the Shrew, "has been the invariable text from the first publication in 1623 until our own day;" when the fact is, that it stands properly corrected in my edition in 1826, with the following note:

"Blackstone suggests that we should read ethics, and the sense seems to require it; I have therefore admitted it into the text."

It is possible that Mr. Collier may have never looked into my edition of the poet, and I may honestly say that I regret it, not on my own account but on his, for I think, had he consulted it, his own would not have been the worse for it.

S. W. Singer.

Manor Place, South Lambeth.

MINIATURE RING OF CHARLES I.

(Vol. vi., p. 578.)

By the courtesy of W. K. Rogers, Esq. (in whose possession it is), I am enabled to account for another of these interesting and invaluable relics; one of the four said to have been presented by the Martyr prior to his execution.

"Rogers of Lota.

This family was early remarkable for its loyalty and attachment to the Crown; a ring is still preserved as an heir-loom, which was presented to its ancestor by King Charles I. during his misfortunes."—Burke's Commoners of Great Britain and Ireland.

Robert Rogers of Lota received extensive grants of land from Charles II., which upon the accession of James II. were confirmed to him by letters patent. He was Mayor of Cork, 1680, M. P. for that city 1692, and again 1695. In the body of his will, bearing date 1690, and registered in the Record Court, Dublin, occurs the following paragraph, embraced by brackets, as if he wished to convey forcibly his appreciation of the value of the relic:

["And I also bequeath to Noblett Rogers the miniature portrait-ring of the martyr Charles I., given by that monarch to my ancestor previous to his execution; and I particularly desire that it may be preserved in the name and family."]

The miniature, which is beautifully painted in enamel, and said to be by Vandyke, has been reset in a tasteful and appropriate style; and it is in this state that I have seen it. But Mr. Rogers informs me that its original setting and inscriptions exactly corresponded with those of the ring in the possession of the Misses Pigott, described in Hulbert's History of Salop; and the same tradition exists in the family as to its having been one of four presented by Charles to certain of his friends or followers. There can be little question, therefore, as to the genuineness of both these rings. With regard to the portrait being the work of Vandyke, Mr. R. writes to me—

"I know not on what authority it is stated, but I believe there is not a family of old standing in the county Cork in which tradition has not assigned its execution to that master; and certainly in Rome, where it was much admired, the artists, when questioned 'Whose style?' frequently answered, 'Vandyke.'"

Portraits by Vandyke in enamel, it is said, are known to be in existence. Whether so renowned a master would have submitted to the wearisome and laborious operation of repeating a number of works so minute, even for a crowned head, seems to admit of a doubt; yet there is no difficulty in imagining him to have superintended the progress of the artist employed to copy his own portrait of Charles, and even to have bestowed some finishing touches upon it.

I have lately seen a ring with a portrait of Charles on ivory, in coarse and very inferior style, and in a plain gold setting. It is in the possession of a gentleman in whose family it has continued for several generations. Doubtless many such memorials of their murdered king were worn at the time by his devoted partizans, and may yet be in existence.

C. Ley.

Bere Regis.

CHANTRY CHAPELS.

(Vol. vi., p. 223.)

At the Derby Congress of the British Archæological Association, the Duke of Rutland exhibited a document of which the following notice by Mr. H. N. Black is made in the Journal of their Transactions (vol. for 1851, p. 297.):

"A bull of Pope Alexander IV., dated at Viterbo, 2 id. Mar., anno 4, viz., 14 March, 1258. It is addressed to the Bishop of Coventry, setting forth that Richard de Herthull lived in a place remote from the mother church, which at some seasons was inaccessible; that he already had a chapel on his own land, and desired to have a chaplain to serve therein, for whom he was prepared to provide fit support. The matter was therefore referred to his diocesan, to grant license accordingly if he should deem it expedient. The leaden seal is yet attached to this beautiful little document."

Then follow the words of the document in Latin.

Herthull has been corrupted into Hartle: and on the moor of this name a chapel still remains, although of much later date than that mentioned in the above-named document; traces of an earlier erection are however still visible in a portion of the present foundations. It is now used as a barn. Distant from this about two miles, at Meadow Place, near Yolgrave, is another chapel, now used for a similar purpose as the foregoing. In this, the jambs of all the windows still remain; the east window is a very large one.

The above is not intended to answer W. H. K.'s Query, but rather as a note in connexion with it.

T. N. B.

Chester.

In the North Riding of Yorkshire, celebrated for its monasteries, &c., were many chantry chapels, both in the hamlets, and in the rural situations apart from them. Gill's Vallis Eboracensis contains an account of several; among the rest may be noticed one at Newton Grange. This chapel, which is now used for agricultural purposes, is preserved, by request of its noble owner Lord Feversham, in its primitive form. It stands in a meadow field, at some distance from the ruins of the ancient seat of the Cholmeleys, and was used as a burial chantry, but not exclusively so. In 1820 a vault was discovered beneath the floor; and five coffins were removed to Oswald Kirk churchyard, and re-interred there. In order to preserve the chapel from ruin, Lady Cholmeley bequeathed one pound per annum to the Rector of Ampleforth for preaching a sermon annually therein; but the ruinous state of the building at that time caused the removal of the pulpit, and the sermon is preached in the church at Oswald Kirk.

The Valor Ecclesiasticus contains the records of dissolved chantries.

J. E. G.

PHOTOGRAPHIC NOTES AND QUERIES.

The Collodion Process.—I have been much pleased with the directions given by Dr. Diamond in your columns for the production of collodion positives; but they have been hitherto unaccompanied by any reference to the causes of those numerous failures that occur in this delicate process, and which are so disheartening to beginners. I will just enumerate a few of the appearances with which I have been troubled, and trust that they may elicit from other operators an account of some of their instructive failures. I will premise, as an answer to a former Query respecting the cost and description of lenses, that I obtained mine of Mr. Goddard, now of Jesse Cottage, Witton, Middlesex. They are combination-lenses, two inches and a quarter in diameter (achromatic); the front lens can be used singly for views, producing a picture nearly seven inches square, but when combined covering four inches. For these, with brass mounting, I paid less than 3l.: a single lens, the same diameter, would be about 1l. They work to focus, cover flat, and define well, producing pictures equal to the most expensive.

I have usually preferred Mr. Archer's collodion, as the most certain and cleanest. The silver bath is composed of thirty grains nitrate of silver and two drops of nitric acid to each ounce of distilled water. An even film may be obtained by the following means:—Represent the plate of glass by the following figure:

13 24

Hold the plate with the left hand at 1, pour a body of collodion in the centre: tilt towards 1 (being careful not to let it touch the thumb), incline towards 2, run into 3, and pour off at 4: then hold the plate vertically (resting the corner 4 on the neck of the collodion bottle) to drain: incline it first to the right and then to the left, repeating this several times until the ridges are removed. By these means an even film may be produced, without a thick ridge, from 2 to 4. The time it may be left before plunging into the silver bath will depend on the temperature (about half a minute). Dip evenly into the bath, lifting up and down to allow of the evaporation of the ether: the film will also saturate more rapidly. When the greasy appearance is gone, it is ready for the camera. Sometimes the film is nearly transparent and bluish, not having sufficient iodide of silver; or it may contain too much iodide, the greater part flaking off in the bath, leaving the collodion with very little, and that patchy; or from being placed in the bath too quick, the lower corner still present a reticulated appearance, which of course renders it useless.

Having exposed the plate the necessary time, the next step is the development. The solution I usually employ is prepared with protosulphate of iron. I do not find distilled water absolutely necessary (during the summer months I fancied the tones were improved by using ordinary water, perhaps from containing a little lime), and the acetate acid is not glacial, but a description termed Beaufoy's, much less expensive. The proportions are—

Water 2 ounces.

Acetic acid 1 drachm.

Protosulphate of iron 8 grains.

Nitric acid 2 drops.

Mix the water and acetic acid first; then dissolve the iron; and, lastly, add the nitric acid, which, by varying the quantity, produces different effects. On pouring the solution over the plate, there is sometimes a difficulty experienced in causing it to flow evenly. Sometimes a little more acetic acid in the developing solution, or, if the plate has been out of the bath some time, redipping it, will prevent this; but if this does not remove it, and the resulting picture is hard and unpleasant in tone, a new bath is necessary. For positives, the resulting picture is more pleasing and delicate by using the developing agent rather weak. After it has remained on sufficiently long to bring out the image, the undecomposed iodide is to be removed by hyposulphite of soda. I always use the same solution, pouring it on and off until exhausted. Having sufficiently washed, the picture may perhaps appear with many black spots, this may in future be obviated by adding a little alcohol to the collodion:—or it may be covered with white spots; in that case the collodion requires settling, or rapidly filtrating through an old piece of loose silk. Sometimes it will look all black and white (a common fault with collodion positives), without middle tints: by adding a little more acetic acid, or an extra drop of nitric acid, to the developing solution, or the addition of a few drops of ordinary pyrogallic solution, this disagreeable effect may be overcome. In taking portraits, it is often caused by having the sitter placed with too much front light. Then, again, the should-be whites of the picture may be dull and greenish by reflected, and red by transmitted, light. This effect I generally find remedied by putting less nitric acid in the developing solution. During the development, by watching the colour (by holding a piece of white paper underneath), this red tendency may be observed; in that case the drawing may be preserved by leaving the plate for about a minute after pouring the developing agent off, and before removing the iodide. Some change appears to take place by its contact with the air; it gradually gets more opaque, and when finished, though not so white as many, yet presenting an extremely rich brownish-yellow tone.

During the late dull weather, many of my plates have shown a tendency to an uniform leaden-looking deposit, destroying the blacks of the picture. A little more nitric acid in the bath will sometimes overcome this, but I have not yet found a sufficient remedy. During the summer months I was in the habit of using double the quantity of iron I have stated, diluting the solution more; then was compelled to diminish the quantity to twelve grains, and now I use eight. I have tried the proportions recommended by French photographers, but they seem to contain too large a proportion of iron. I prefer the use of the protosulphate to the protonitrate of iron from its cheapness, and the ease with which it is made up. It will also keep for any length of time, rather improving than otherwise.

I back with liquid jet from Suggitt, opposite the House of Correction, Mount Pleasant, Clerkenwell. It dries rapidly, and brightens the appearance.

G. H. P.

Mr. Weld Taylor's Iodizing Process.—The process I sent to your columns last month, for iodizing paper, is applicable only to the paper of Canson Frères; and I may further explain, that if the solution does not answer well, it may be washed over again with a solution of iodide of potassa only of the usual strength, and then set on a dish of slightly-acidulated water, to assist the separation and set free the potash. To make the matter clear to Mr. Shadbolt, I may observe, to one who is in the habit of iodizing paper, a considerable amount of the passage relating to cyanide of potassa could not be misunderstood; the nitrate of silver being added to the iodide of potassa, forms at once a precipitate which it is required to take up. The old double iodide says, add iodide of potassa till it does so, and it will do so; but the cyanide of potassa does it much better, and the cyanogen is lost as the paper dries, otherwise it would take no image at all. In the process I gave it merely requires an equivalent, "and cyanide of potassa is always of use in many of these processes." That equivalent is of course best arrived at by a solution, as, if the cyanide of potassa were added in the lump, it would be lost or be in excess.

Further, I may enlighten Mr. Shadbolt by assuring him that the iodizing paper with the ammonio-nitrate of silver, which I never saw published yet, is the best way; and I may confidently assert that the better ways of iodizing papers are not published at all. It is a tedious process to do, but it is as certain as taking a positive from a negative. At present I have not space to give my way of doing it. I may also add, that it will not answer with all papers. In fact, all samples of paper require some modification of the process, as the chemicals are different in the various modes of bleaching paper by different manufacturers. The ammonio-nitrate is perfect with Whatman's paper; indeed it is a subject of much regret, that this maker has not turned out a paper as thin and hard as the Canson Frères. The latter gentlemen have added some chemical, probably iodine, to their paper, which renders it almost impossible to iodize it at all. I believe it to be iodine, because the paper becomes perfectly black over free iodine, which no English paper will do. At all events, this paper is very uncertain, although it has a quality in appearance that is unsurpassed by any other.

Weld Taylor.

7. Conduit Street West, Bayswater.

Sir William Newton's Process: Further Explanations.—In reply to your correspondent F. Maxwell Lyte, who is desirous of knowing my motive for washing the paper over with chloride of barium previous to iodizing—

In the first place, I find that it appears to give strength to the paper.

Secondly, that the action in the camera is better and more certain.

Thirdly, it keeps cleaner in the bringing-out process, thereby allowing a longer time for a more complete development.

Fourthly, I have never found any solarizing take place since I have used it (about three years); and, fifthly, I find that it keeps longer and better after it is excited for the camera.

From the observations which I have made since I have made use of chloride of barium, I conclude that it has the effect of destroying any injurious properties which may be in the paper, and more especially with respect to the SIZE; and besides which, when combined with iodide of silver, greater intensity is obtained in the negative.

I have occasionally prepared paper without chloride of barium, but I have always found (except for positives) that I could not rely upon it with the same degree of certainty. I need scarcely add that throughout the whole of this process the greatest care and attention is required, and that the water should be constantly agitated while the paper is in it, and that the water should be once changed.

W. J. Newton.

6. Argyle Street.