Act 3 — Replies.

BISHOP KEN.

(Vol. vii., p. 526.)

By converting a noun into a surname, Dodsley has led J. J. J. into a natural, but somewhat amusing mistake. The lines quoted are in Horace Walpole's well-known epistle, from Florence, addressed to his college friend T[homas] A[shton,] tutor of the Earl of P[lymouth].

In Walpole's Fugitive Pieces, printed at Strawberry Hill, 1758 (the copy of which, now before me, was given by Walpole to Cole in 1762, and contains several notes by the latter), the passage stands correctly thus:

Your correspondent refers to an edition of the Collection of Poems of 1758. In a much later edition of that work, viz. 1782, the line is again printed—

It is strange that the mistake was not corrected, at the instance of Walpole himself, during this long interval.

My present object is, to call your attention to a "Midnight Hymn," by Sir Thomas Browne, which will be found in his works (vol. ii. p. 113., edit. Wilkin). Can there be question that to it Ken is indebted for some of the thoughts and expressions in two of his own hymns?

The good bishop's fame will not be lessened by his adopting what was good in the works of the learned physician. He doubtless thought far more of the benefit which he could render to the youthful Wykehamists, than of either the originality or smoothness of his own verses.

In the work referred to—one of the most valuable and best edited of modern days—Mr. Wilkin, when speaking of a fine passage on music in the Religio Medici (vol. ii. p. 106.), asks whether it may not have suggested to Addison the beautiful conclusion of his Hymn on the Glories of Creation:

This passage in Sir Thomas Browne appears forcibly to have struck the gifted author of Confessions of an English Opium-eater (see p. 106. of that work).

J. H. Markland.

BOHN'S EDITION OF HOVEDEN.

(Vol. vii., p. 579.)

Mr. Riley mistakes my purpose if he thinks that my object was to make a personal attack on him; and for anything in my last communication which may have appeared to possess that tendency, I hereby freely express my regret. Still I cannot allow that he has explained away the mistakes of which I complained, and of which I still have to complain. The kingdom of Cork never "extended to within a short distance of Waterford;" and the territory of Desmond was never co-extensive with Cork, having been always confined to the county of Kerry. Mr. Riley, therefore, is in error when he uses "Cork" and "Desmond" as synonymous. Again, he falls into the same mistake by assuming "Crook, Hook Point, or The Crook," to be synonyms. I never heard that Henry II. landed at Hook Point, which is in the county of Wexford, and from which a land journey to Waterford would be very circuitous. At Crook, however, on the opposite side of Waterford Harbour, and within the shelter of Creden Head, he is said to have done so; and as that point answers pretty exactly to the Crock of Hoveden, why assume some indefinite point of the "Kingdom of Cork" as the locality, even supposing that its boundary did approach Waterford city? Really Mr. Riley's explanations but make matters worse.

With regard to "Erupolensis" being an alias of Ossoriensis, I may quote the authority of the learned De Burgo, who, speaking of the diocese of Ossory, observes:

"Quandoque tamen nuncupata erat Eyrupolensis ab Eyro Flumine, vulgò Neoro, quod Kilkenniam alluit."—Hibernia Dominicana, p. 205. note i.

I maintain that the reading public has just cause to complain, not (as I said on a former occasion) because the editor of such a book as Hoveden's Annals does not know everything necessary to elucidate his author, but because baseless conjectures are put forward as elucidations of the text.

James Graves.

Kilkenny.

COLERIDGE'S CHRISTABEL.

(Vol. vii., pp. 206. 292.)

It is difficult to believe that the third part of Christabel, published in Blackwood for June, 1819, vol. v. p. 286., could have either "perplexed the public," or "pleased Coleridge." In the first place, it was avowedly written by "Morgan Odoherty;" and in the next, it is too palpable a parody to have pleased the original author, who could hardly have been satisfied with the raving rhapsodies put into his mouth, or with the treatment of his innocent and virtuous heroine. This will readily be supposed when it is known that the Lady Geraldine is made out to have been a man in woman's attire, and that "the mark of Christabel's shame, the seal of her sorrow," is neither more nor less than the natural consequence of her having shared her chamber with such a visitor.

Is your correspondent A. B. R. correct in stating this parody to have been the composition of Dr. Maginn? In the biography of this brilliant writer in the twenty-third volume of the Dublin University Magazine, Dr. Moir, who had undoubtedly good opportunities of knowing, mentions that his first contribution to Blackwood was the Latin translation of "Chevy Chase," in the number for November 1819; if this be correct, many of the cleverest papers that appeared under the name of Odoherty, and which are all popularly attributed to Maginn, must have been the work of other authors, a circumstance which I had been already led to suspect from the frequent local allusions to Scotland in general, and to Edinburgh in particular, which could have scarcely proceeded from the pen of a native of Cork, who had then never visited Scotland. Since Dr. Moir's own death, it appears that the Eve of St. Jerry, and the Rhyme of the Auncient Waggonere, have been claimed for him, as well as some other similar pieces; and I believe that the series of Boxiana, which also appeared under the name of the renowned ensign and adjutant, was written by Professor Wilson. Maginn's contributions were at first under various signatures, and some time elapsed before he made use of the nom de guerre of Morgan Odoherty, which eventually became so identified with him.

J. S. Warden.

Paternoster Row.

ITS.

(Vol. vii., p. 578.)

I am sorry to intrude upon your valuable space again in reference to this little word, but the inquiry of Mr. Rye (p. 578.), and other reasons, render it desirable. The truth is that Mr. Keightley, Mr. Rye and myself, are more or less mistaken. 1. Mr. Keightley, in his quotation from Fairfax's Tasso (Mr. Singer's accurate reprint, 1817), has his in both lines. 2. Mr. Rye, in understanding me to refer to any translation proper; unless Sternhold and Hopkins are to be considered as having produced one. 3. Myself, in supposing the old metrical version in the Book of Common Prayer originally had the word its. I copied from the Oxford edition in fol. of 1770; but a 4to. edition, "printed by Iohn Daye, dwelling over Aldersgate, anno 1574," does not exhibit the word in the places specified; we have instead her in both places.

Hitherto, then, the oldest examples of the use of this word have been adduced from Shakspeare. These are to be found in the first folio, but are in each case printed with the apostrophe after the t,—it's. This method of writing the word, however, soon disappeared, for in a treatise of Pemble's, printed 1635 (the author died in 1623), it appears as we write it now:

"If faith alone by its own virtue and force."—Works, fol. p. 171.

I have not observed the fact remarked, that besides the use of his, her, hereof, thereof, of it, and the, it was customary to employ the unchanged word it for the possessive case. I will give an example or two. In the Genevan version, at Rom. viii. 20., we read "Not of it owne wille." This passage is thus quoted in 1611 and in 1622, but in a later edition of the same work, 1656, its is substituted for it. I have a note of one other instance from Perkins on Rev. ii. 28. (ed. 1606): "For as the sunne in the spring time quickeneth by it warme beames."

In conclusion, may I request that if any genuine instance of the use of this word its, is observed by any of your many contributors, they will communicate the fact to you? At present we can only go back to Shakspeare, in his Winter's Tale and Henry VIII.

B. H. C.

FAMILY OF MILTON'S WIDOW.

(Vol. vii., p. 596.)

As your correspondent Cranmore has long been a deserter from the ranks of "N. & Q.," I may perhaps, without presumption, for once "stand in his shoes," and reply to the challenge addressed to him by V. M.

Much obscurity has all along prevailed among the many biographers of Milton, in reference to the family of Elizabeth Minshull, his third wife, and eventually, for more than fifty years, his widow. Philips, Warton, Todd, and numerous others, state her to have been "the daughter of Mr. Minshull, of Cheshire,"—a very vague assertion when we consider that there were at least three or four different families of that name then existing in the county. Pennant, who delighted in particularities, sometimes even at the expense of historical fact, tells us, for the first time, in 1782, that she was the daughter of Mr. (or Sir) Edward Minshull, of Stoke, near Nantwich, and that she died at the latter town in March, 1726, at an advanced age. Mr. Ormerod, again, whose splendid History of Cheshire will be the standard authority of the county for ages after he himself is carried to his fathers, has unfortunately adopted the same conclusion, and so given a colour, as it were, to this erroneous statement of our Cambrian antiquary. The Rev. Benjamin Mardon's paper, printed in the Journal of the British Archæological Association for 1849, is another and more recent instance of the way in which such errors as this may become perpetuated. Another writer (Palmer) conjectures her to have been the daughter of Minshull of Manchester; but this also has been proved to be entirely destitute of foundation.

The truth of the matter is (and I am indebted to Mr. Fitchett Marsh's clear and succinct dissertation in the Miscellany of the Chetham Society for the information), the poet's widow was daughter of Mr. Randle Minshull, of Wistaston in the county of Chester, whose great-great-grandfather, a younger son of Minshull of Minshull, settled on a small estate there in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, and so founded the house of Minshull of Wistaston. Milton was introduced to his Cheshire wife by his friend Dr. Paget; and it was by his advice that the author of Paradise Lost once more entered into the bonds of wedlock. Mr. Marsh, to clear up all doubt upon the subject, and having previously established the identity of the family, examined the parish register at Wistaston, and there found that "Elizabeth, the daughter of Randolph Mynshull, was baptized the 30th day of December, 1638;" so that, if baptized shortly after birth, she must have been about twenty-six years old when united to Milton in 1664, and about eighty-nine at her death, which occurred in 1727.

V. M., and all others who desire farther enlightenment on the subject, will do well to refer to the volume before mentioned, which forms the twenty-fourth of the series published by the Chetham Society.

T. Hughes.

Chester.

BOOKS OF EMBLEMS—JACOB BEHMEN.

(Vol. vii., pp. 469. 579.)

Perhaps you will allow poor old Jacob Behmen, the inspired cobbler of Gorlitz, a niche in your temple of writers of emblems. I think he is legitimately entitled to that distinction. His works are nearly all couched in emblems; and, besides his own figures, his principles were pictorially illustrated by his disciple William Law (the author of The Way to Divine Knowledge, The Serious Call, &c.), in some seventeen simple, and four compound emblematic drawings. Of these the most remarkable, and in fact the most intelligible, are three compound emblems representing the Creation, Apostasy, and Redemption of Man. Every phase of each stage in the soul's history is disclosed to view by means of double and single doors. We are now concerned only with such of Behmen's emblematic works as have been translated into English. The following list contains only those in my own library. I am acquainted with no others:

(1.) "The Works of Jacob Behmen, the Teutonic Theosopher, to which is prefixed the Life of the Author, with Figures illustrating his Principles, left by the Rev. William Law, M.A. In four thick Volumes, royal 4to. London: printed for M. Richardson in Paternoster Row, MDCCLXIV." With a fine portrait of Behmen facing the title-page of the first volume. This edition contains the following works:

1. Aurora: the Day-spring, or Dawning of the Day in the East; or Morning-redness in the Rising of the Sun: that is, the Root or Mother of Philosophy, Astrology, and Theology, from the True Ground; or, A Description of Nature.

2. The Three Principles of the Divine Essence of the Eternal: Dark, Light, and Temporary World.

3. Mysterium Magnum: or an Explanation of the First Book of Moses called Genesis.

4. Four Tables of Divine Revelation.

5. The High and Deep-Searching of the Threefold Life of Man, through or according to the Three Principles.

6. Forty Questions concerning the Soul, proposed by Dr. Balthasar Walter, and answered by Jacob Behmen.

7. The Treatise of the Incarnation.

8. The Clavis, or an Explanation of some Principal Points and Expressions.

9. Signatura Rerum.

10. Of the Election of Grace; or of God's Will towards Man, commonly called Predestination.

11. The Way to Christ discovered in the following Treatises:—I. Of True Repentance. II. Of True Resignation. III. Of Regeneration. IV. Of Supernatural Life.

12. A Discourse between a Soul hungry and thirsty after the Fountain of Life, the sweet Love of Jesus Christ, and a Soul enlightened.

13. A Treatise of the Four Complexions, or a Consolatory Instruction for a Sad and Assaulted Heart in the Time of Temptation.

14. A Treatise of Christ's Testament, Baptism, and the Supper.

(3.) A beautiful MS. translation of "The Way to Christ." This is hardly so accurate as the one already referred to, though some of the expressions are better chosen. The date of this MS. is about 1730, or earlier.

(4.) A fair MS. translation of Jacob Behmen's treatise called "A Fundamental Instruction concerning the Earthly and concerning the Heavenly Mystery; how they two stand in one another, and how in the Earthly the Heavenly becometh manifested or revealed, wherein then you shall see Babell the great citty upon Earth stand with its Forms and Wonders; and wherefore, or out of what, Babell is generated, and where Antichrist will stand quite naked. Comprised in Nine Texts. Written May 8, 1620, in High Dutch." (I have seen no printed translation of this treatise.)

(5.) MS. translation of the fourth treatise of "The Way to Christ," viz. "of the Supersensual Life." This is a less accurate rendering than either of the others above mentioned.

Perhaps your mystic correspondents will kindly furnish lists of other publications and MSS. of "the Teutonick Theosopher." There are sixteen more of his works, of which fifteen are now extant in High Dutch. As old Behmen is but little known in this country, save by ill-repute, as having led astray William Law in his old age, and, through him, having tinctured the religious philosophy of Coleridge, it way be worth noting, that no less a philosopher than Schelling (to whom, as we know, Coleridge stood so greatly indebted) stole from the Lusatian shoemaker the corner-stones of his Philosophy of Nature.

C. Mansfield Ingleby.

Birmingham.

RAFFAELLE'S SPOSALIZIO.

(Vol. vii., p. 595.)

With regard to your correspondent Mr. G. Brindley Ackworth's Query respecting Raffaelle's Sposalizio, I am induced to think that the custode at the church of the Santa Croce at Florence was right as to his information. In the copy which I have of the "Ordo ad faciendum Sponsalia," according to the ancient use of Salisbury, the ring is undoubtedly to be placed on the bride's right hand. Wheatly indeed says, that "when the man espouses his wife with it (i.e. the ring), he is to put it upon the fourth finger of her left hand;" and then refers, for the reason of this, to the rubric of Salisbury Manual, which speaks of the vein going from this finger directly to the heart.

Now, what are the precise words of this rubric? After giving directions for the benediction of the ring, provided it has not previously been blessed, the rubric goes on thus:

"Si autem antea fuerit annulus ille benedictus tunc statim postquam vir posuerit annulum super librum, accipiens sacerdos annulum tradat ipsum viro: quem vir accipiat manu sua dextera cum tribus principalioribus digitis, et manu sua sinistra tenens dexteram sponsæ docente sacerdote dicat."

The man is to receive the ring from the priest with the three principal fingers of the right hand; and then, holding the right hand of the bride with his own left hand, he shall say, "With this ring," &c. He is then to place the ring on her thumb, saying, "In nomine Patris;" then on her second finger, saying "et Filii;" then on the third finger, saying "et Spiritus Sancti;" then on the fourth finger, saying "Amen;" and there he is to leave it. There is not a word said about the bride's left hand, the right is alone mentioned; and why should the man hold her right hand with his left, but that with his right hand he may the more easily place the ring, first on the thumb, then on the other fingers of her right hand, until it arrives at its ideal destination?

While I am upon this subject, allow me to point out another singular direction given in a rubric in this same "Ordo ad faciendum Sponsalia." When the woman is, as we term it, given away, if she be a spinster, she is to have her hand uncovered; if a widow, covered: the words are—

"Deinde detur femina a patre suo, vel ab amicis ejus: quod si puella sit, discoopertam habeat manum, si vidua, tectam."

There is no reason given for this distinction, nor do I ever remember to have seen it noticed.

F. B. W.

The Sposalizio, or "espousals," or betrothing, is certainly a different ceremony from the marriage. Is not the fact of young ladies popularly considering and calling the third finger of the right hand the engaged finger, and wearing a ring on that finger when engaged, a confirmation of your correspondent's idea, that at this "betrothal" or "espousals" (compare the phrase "his espoused wife" of Mary before her marriage with Joseph) the ring was placed in the right hand; at the marriage ceremony on the left?

Sc.

WINDFALL.

(Vol. vii., p. 285.)

W. W. is desirous of interpreting windfall, as necessarily from its origin denoting a gain. He is, perhaps, expecting a handsome bequest; I wish he may get it; but he may rely on it that the windfall of the bequest will be accompanied by the windfall of the "Succession Act." Let us hear what our great Doctor says; his first explanation is, "Fruit blown down from the tree."

W. W.'s little boys and girls would deem a windfall of unripe apples, at this time of the year, a good; they will make a pie for dinner. W. W. himself would call it an evil; the ripe crop is ruined.

But let us see how Johnson illustrates his explanation:

"Their boughs were too great for their stem, they became a windfall upon the sudden."—Bacon, Essay 29.

Webster copies this for his first explanation, as he does also our Dr's. second for his second; but as it is not his plan to illustrate by examples, he is saved from the eccentricity of his original.

If we refer to Bacon we shall be reminded of Johnson's warning, that by "hasty detruncation the general tendency of a sentence may be changed." The sentence here so hastily detruncated, stands thus in the Essay:

"The Spartans were a nice people in point of naturalisation, whereby while they kept their compasse, they stood firme. But when they did spread, and their boughes were becommen too great for their stemme, they became a windfall upon the suddaine. 'Potentia eorum subito corruit.'"

They, in Johnson's mutilated sentence, refers to the boughs; in Bacon, to the Spartans; so that, in the first place, the Spartans are transformed into boughs, and, in the next place, the boughs into fruit. Detruncation, however, had nothing to do with this latter metamorphosis; and I am afraid this is not a solitary instance of lexicographical incongruity.

W. W. may assure himself that a windfall is "whatever falls by the wind, or with similar suddenness or unexpectedness, whether bringing good or ill."

And if he will take the trouble to refer to "The Case of Impeachment of Waste," quoted by Mr. Arrowsmith, Vol. vii., p. 375., he will find, only a few lines before that gentleman's quotation begins, a legal question at issue as to the right of property in windfalls.

Q.

Bloomsbury.

MR. JUSTICE NEWTON.

(Vol. vii., pp. 528. 600.)

It would greatly enhance the value of contributions to "N. & Q.," save much trouble, and often lead to a more direct intercourse between persons of similar pursuits, if contributors would drop initials, and sign their own proper name and habitat; and in saying this, I believe the Editor will second me. If C. S. G. had done this, I should have been happy to send him an envelope full of proofs that Mr. Justice Newton did not die in 1444, for that a fine was levied before him in 1448; that he is not buried in Bristol Cathedral, but in the Wyke Aisle in Yatton Church, Somerset, where may be seen his effigies beautifully carved in alabaster, in his judge's robes, and his head resting on a wheat-sheaf or garb; that there was no relationship between the second baronet of Hather, his arms being cross bones, &c., and those of the judge, who was truly a Cradock, were three garbs, &c. I would now beg leave to refer C. S. G. to my former communications in "N. & Q." about Cradock Newton, particularly Vol. ii., pp. 248. 427.; Chronica Judicialia, 1635; Foss's Lives of the Judges; and a paper of mine in the forthcoming volume of the Proceedings of the Archæological Institute at Bristol.

H. T. Ellacombe.

Rectory, Clyst St. George.

From C. S. G.'s reply to my inquiry respecting Mr. Justice Newton I conclude that at least two individuals of this name have, at different periods, and at a considerable interval apart, occupied the judicial bench.

The portrait I wish to trace is of a well-known character of the Commonwealth era, and could not, of course, have belonged to a judge then some two centuries deceased. My omission to state this circumstance, in the first instance, has very naturally occasioned complete misapprehension throughout.

Since my Query was written, a duplicate of the drawing in the Bodleian (minus the inscription), out of the Strawberry Hill collection, has, curiously enough, appeared in an extensive public sale. It was likewise said to be by Bulfinch; and farther examination leads me to infer that both this and the Oxford copy were, in respect of artist, in all probability not incorrectly described. As Bulfinch lived temp. Charles II., and the Bodleian inscription points to his original painting, as "in the hands of Mr. Justice Newton," it may fairly be presumed that a second judge of the name flourished in this reign.

Substantially, then, my original Query yet remains unanswered, notwithstanding C. S. G.'s obliging reply.

F. Kyffin Lenthall.

36. Mount Street, Grosvenor Square.

PHOTOGRAPHIC CORRESPONDENCE.

Mr. Lyte's Treatment of Positives.—It would be quite superfluous, after the very excellent communication of Mr. Pollock, were I to give a detailed account of my method of printing albumen positives, as, in the main, we both follow the process of Mr. Le Gray. But as we both have our own improvements on the original process, I will ask for space in which to record our differences in manipulation.

First, in regard to the chloride of gold, I always find, and I believe such is the experience of many photographers, that all salts of gold, though they heighten the effect at first, have a slow, but sure, destructive action on the picture.

Next, I find that acetic acid, by generating sulphurous acid, has a similar effect, and my care was to try and make a solution which should be free from these defects. I first take my positive, which, as a general rule, I print at least half as dark again as the shade required. This done, I wash it well with water, and next with salt and water in the proportion of about half a grain per gallon, or quite a tasteless solution; this removes all the nitrate of silver from the paper, or if there is any left, the bath of salt decomposes it, leaving none in the texture of the paper to unite with the hypo., which otherwise forms a sticky substance, difficult to remove, which may be readily seen on looking through a positive which has been too hastily finished in the usual way, giving a dark shade, and a want of transparency to the lights. I then place the picture in a bath composed as follows:

The iodide of potassium I add on the same principle as Mr. Pollock's iodide of silver, but as being more convenient, as immediately on being added it decomposes some of the chloride of silver, and forms iodide of silver. I am happy to find that Mr. Pollock confirms me in the use of this salt; which I had long thought to improve the tone of my pictures. The liquid, which will become rapidly very dark coloured, must be set aside in an open vessel in a warm place for some weeks, e.g. till, when a positive is placed in it, left for a short time, and then washed with water, it shows clean and not mottled in the light. The solution may be kept always exposed, and much improves by this: if much used, it should be replenished with a simple solution of hypo. three ounces or two ounces to the pint; if little used, it may be filled up as much as evaporates with pure water.

The positive is left in this solution till the required tint is obtained, when it is to be placed in plain hypo. two ounces to the pint, and in about a quarter of an hour transferred to a basin of pure water, and well washed in several waters. The other detail of Mr. Pollock's process is so admirably and clearly given, and so like that I pursue, that I will not trouble your columns with it again.

The after-bath of pure hypo. is not absolutely necessary; and where it is desired to obtain fine olive, and dark sepia, and black tints, a better tone results from washing well, long, and frequently, with water alone.

This bath also gives very rich tints with paper, prepared without albumen: viz.—

Lay the paper on this, and then hang it up to dry, and excite with ammonio-nitrate containing seventy grains of nitrate of silver to one ounce of water. Should the above solution not give the requisite tints soon after being made, add more chloride of silver; but bear in mind that the solution will then soon become saturated when setting positives, and when this occurs it must be rectified by the addition of a small portion of fresh hypo. alone.

F. Maxwell Lyte.

P.S.—I may add that I have only lately tried the addition of the iodide of potassium to my setting liquid, and so must qualify my recommendation of it by saying so.

Florian, Torquay.

Stereoscopic Angles.—I am obliged to Messrs. Shadbolt and Wilkinson for the information given in reply to my Queries (Vol. vii., p. 505.) My mode of operation is precisely that of Mr. Wilkinson: "I obtain all the information I can from every source; then try, and judge for myself." Hence the present letter.

I regret to be obliged to differ from Mr. Shadbolt, but there is a point in his communication which appears to me to arise from a misconception of the stereoscopic problem. He says (p. 557.), "for distant views there is in nature scarcely any stereoscopic effect." Now, surely visual distance is merely visual stereosity; for, to see an object solid is merely to see its parts in relief, some of them appearing to project or recede from the others. It is the difficulty of producing this effect in landscapes, by the ordinary camera process, that renders views taken by such means so deficient in air, or, as the artists term it, aerial perspective, most distant objects seeming almost as near as those in the foreground. This indeed is the main defect of all photographs: they are true representations of nature to one eye—cyclopean pictures, as it were—appearing perfectly stereoscopic with one eye closed, but seeming absolutely flattened when viewed by the two eyes. I remember being shown a huge photograph of the city of Berlin, taken from an eminence; and a more violent caricature of nature I never set eyes upon. It was almost Chinese in its perspective: the house-tops appeared to have been mangled. It was a wonderful work of art, photographically considered; but artistically it was positively hideous. But the same defect exists in all monophotographic representations, though in a less degree, and consequently less apparent than in views to which a sense of distance is essential. In portraits, the features appear slightly flattened; and until photographers are able to overcome this, the chief of all obstacles to perfection, it is idle to talk of the art giving a correct rendering of nature. This is what is wanted, more than colour, diactinic lenses, multiplication of impressions, or anything else. And when it is remembered that the law of an ordinary convex lens is, the farther the object from the lens the nearer the focus, and, vice versâ, the nearer the object the farther the focus, it becomes evident that by such an instrument distant objects must be made to appear near, and near objects distant, and nature consequently mangled.

The stereoscope gives us the only demonstrably correct representation of nature; and when that instrument is rendered more simple, and the peep-show character of the apparatus disconnected from it, the art of photography will transcend the productions of the painter—but not till then.

I am anxious to obtain all the information I can from such of your photographic readers as are practically acquainted with the stereoscopic portion of the art relative to the angles under which they find it best to take their pictures for given distances.

Mr. Fenton, the secretary of the Photographic Society, takes his stereoscopic pictures, when the objects are 50 feet and upwards from the camera, at 1 in 25. This is, as Mr. Shadbolt states, Professor Wheatstone's rule for distances.

Mr. Wilkinson, on the other hand, asserts that 3 feet in 300 yards is sufficient separation for the cameras: this is only 1 in 300,—a vast difference truly.

"For views across the Thames," says the editor of the Photographic Journal, "the cameras should be placed 12 feet apart, and with this separation the effect is declared to be astonishing."

Mr. Wilkinson, however, asserts that from 4 to 6 feet in a mile will do well enough!

Farther, Mr. Latimer Clark (the inventor of an ingenious stereoscopic camera) states that with regard to the distance between the two positions of the cameras, he knows no good reason why the natural distance of the eyes, viz. 2½ inches, should be much exceeded. "A little extra relief is obtained," he adds, "without visible distortion, by increasing the separation to about 4 or 5 inches; but if this distance be greatly exceeded, especially for near objects (I give the gentleman's own words), they become apparently diminished in size, and have the appearance of models and dolls rather than natural objects."

The reason for making the separation between the cameras greater than that between the two eyes, is exceedingly simple. The stereograph is to be looked at much nearer than the object itself, and consequently is to be seen under a much larger angle than it is viewed by the two eyes in nature. Hence the two pictures should be taken at the angle under which they are to be observed in the stereoscope. Suppose the object to be 50 feet distant, then of course it is seen by the two eyes under an angle of 2½ inches in 50 feet, or 1 in 240. But it is intended that the stereograph should be seen by the two eyes when but a few inches removed from them, or generally under an angle of 2½ in 12 inches, or nearly 1 in 5. Hence it is self-evident that the stereoscopic angle should be considerably larger than that formed by the optic axes of the two eyes when directed to the object itself.

But there is great diversity of opinion as to the extent of the angles requisite for producing the precise stereoscopic or distantial effect of nature. For myself I prefer Professor Wheatstone's rule, 1 in 25 for objects beyond 50 feet distant. For portraits I find the best angle 1 in 10 when the sitter is 10 feet off, and for busts about 1 in 5 when placed about 5 or 6 feet from the cameras. But I should be happy to receive information from any of your readers concerning this important branch of the photographic art. For months past I have been engaged in a series of experiments in connexion with the subject, and wish for larger experience than it is possible for any single operator to acquire for himself.

Mr. Fenton, I may observe, does not keep the cameras parallel in taking landscapes, but inclines them so that the same object may occupy as nearly as possible the centre of the ground glass plate.

Nor is it essential that perfect horizontality or parallelism of the cameras should be maintained in copying trees. For buildings, however, it is absolutely necessary that the cameras be kept straight.

I am sorry thus to trespass on your space, but being anxious, as Mr. Wilkinson says, to collect information from every source, and your periodical being a happy medium for conveying and receiving instruction, I am glad to avail myself of such a channel.

Φ. (2)

P.S.—Mr. Claudet has, I perceive, been awarded the prize given by the Society of Arts for the best essay on the stereoscope. Can you, or any of your readers, inform me whether this is likely to be published, and when and at what price?

Query respecting Mr. Pollock's Process.—In Mr. Pollock's directions for obtaining positives which appeared in "N. & Q." (Vol. vii, p. 581.), iodide of silver is to be dissolved in a saturated solution of hypo. Can you give me the quantity of iodide of silver to be dissolved, and the quantity of the saturated solution of hypo. in which it is to be dissolved?

N. T. B.

Gallo-nitrate of Silver.—Can you inform me what the true nature of the decomposition is which takes place after a short time in the gallo-nitrate solution of silver? and if there be any ready means of rendering the silver it contains again available for photographic use?

Sir W. Newton, in the description of his calotype process, says: "Bring out with the saturated solution of gallic acid, and when the subject begins to appear, add the aceto-nitrate of silver solution." Which way of doing this is the best,—mixing the two solutions together and applying them to the paper; or applying the paper, when wetted with the gallic acid, to the silver solution?

T. L.