Chapter 4

I assisted Count Venua as far as I was able, for I rejoiced at his intention to draw the minds of the _literati_ of Italy to the subject. Sad to say, the Count was some time after killed by falling into a volcanic crater in the Eastern Isles!

I may here mention that I first saw the old building in 1809, when a youthful assistant to the secretary of a revenue commission. The party, during the inclement month of September, resided in one of the spacious houses at Muttra, which pious Hindoos had in past times erected for the use of pilgrims and the public. The old temple (or whatever it might have been) was cleaned out for our accommodation during the heat of the day, as it then was cooler than the house. The elder civilians were men of ability, classical scholars, and first-rate Asiatic linguists. They descanted on the mythological events which renders "Brij," or the country around Muttra, so holy with the Hindoos, but not one of them knew nor remarked the "cross and basilica."

In youth, the language assigned to flowers appeared to me captivating and elegant, as imparting the finer feelings and sympathies of our nature. In maturer age, and after the study of the history of the customs of mankind, symbols and emblems seemed to me an universal language, which delicately delineated the violent passions of our kind, and transmitted from generation to generation national predilections and pious emotions towards the God of Creation. That mythology should so generally be interpreted Theism, and that forms or ceremonials of worship should be held to limit and define belief in creed, may, in my apprehension, be partly traceable to the school-book Lampriere's _Classical Dictionary_. You or your correspondents may attribute it to other and truer causes.

The rose, the thistle, the shamrock, the leek, the lion, the unicorn, the harp, &c. are familiar examples of national emblems. The ivy, the holly, and the mistletoe are joined up with the Christmas worship, though probably of Druidical origin. The Assyrian sculptures present, under the "Joronher," or effulgence, a sacred tree, which may assimilate with the toolsu and the peepul tree, held in almost equal veneration by the Hindoos. The winged lions and bulls with the heads of men, the angels and cherubim, recall to mind passages of scriptural and pagan history. The sciences of astronomy and mathematics have afforded myths or symbols in the circle, the crescent, the bident, the trident, the cross, &c.

The translators of the cuneiform inscriptions represent crucifixion as the common punishment for rebellion and treason. The Jews may have imitated the Assyrians, as crucifixion may have been adopted long before that of Christ and the two thieves (Qy. robbers). The Mahomedans, who have copied the Jews in many practices and customs, executed gang robbers or daccorts by suspending the criminals from a tree, their heads and arms being tied to the branches, and then ripping up the abdomen. I myself saw in Oude an instance of several bodies. It may be inferred, then, that the position of the culprits under execution was designated by crucifixion. The Hindoos mildly say that when their system of government existed in efficiency there was neither crime nor punishment.

To the examples mentioned by your correspondent, I admit that the form of the cross, as now received, may be derived from that of Christ, discovered on Mount Calvary in 236 A.D. Constantine, in 306 A.D., adopted it as a standard in Labarum. Other nations have attached staves to eagles, dragons, fish, &c. as standards and therefore, construing "Crux ansata" literally, the ensign of Constantine might be formed by attaching a staff to the Divine Glory represented in the Egyptian paintings and Assyrian sculptures.

I should be glad to learn the precise shape of the cross on the Temple of Serapis. If it be the emblem of life or the Creative Power, then the mythology of the Nile agrees with that of the {419} Ganges. If it be the symbol of life, or rather of a future state after judgment, then the religious tenets and creed of Muttra should be elucidated, examined, and refuted by the advocates of conversion and their itinerant agents. Moore's _Hindoo Pantheon_ (though the author had at Bombay, as a military officer, little opportunity of ascertaining particulars of the doctrine) sufficiently treats, under the head of the "Krishna," the subject so as to explain to the conversionists, that unless this doctrine be openly refuted, the missionaries may in truth be fighting their own shadow.

The basilica seems to have originally been the architectural plan of the Roman Forum, or court of justice. The Christians may have converted some of these edifices into churches; otherwise the first churches seem to have been in the form of a long parallelogram, a central nave, and an aisle on each side, the eastern end being rounded, as the station of the bishop or presbyter. The basilica, or cathedral, was probably not introduced until the eighth century, or later.

I have not just now access to the works of Tod and Maurice. The former, I doubt not, is correct in respect to the Temple of Mundore, but I believe the latter is not so in regard to Benares. The trident, like that of Neptune, prevails in the province of Benares; and when it, in appropriate size, rises in the centre of large tanks, has a very solemn effect. I, a great many years ago, visited the chief temple of Benares, and do not recollect that the cross was either noticed to me or by me. This, I think, was the only occasion of observing the forms of worship. There is no fixed service, no presiding priest, no congregation. The people come and go in succession. I then first saw the bell, which, in size some twenty-five pounds weight, is suspended within the interior. Each person, at some period of his devotion, touched the tongue of the bell as invocation or grace. The same purpose is obtained by Hindoos, and particularly the men of the fighting classes, previously to commencing a cooked dinner, by winding a large shell, which gives a louder sound than a horn. The native boys however, on hearing it, exclaim in doggerel rhyme, which I translate,

"The shell is blown, And the devil is flown."

Fear seems so much the parent of superstition, that I attribute this saying to the women, who, as mothers, have usually a superstitious dread not only of evil spirits, but also of the evil eye of mortals towards their young ones. When, some twenty years ago, I was told by a Kentish countryman that the church bell was tolled to drive away evil spirits from a departing soul, I supposed the man to be profanely jocose; but since then I have travelled much in this country and on the Continent, and have seen enough to satisfy me that superstition prevails comparatively less in Asia than in Europe and the pages of "N. & Q." abundantly corroborate the opinion.

H. N.

* * * * *

PHOTOGRAPHIC CORRESPONDENCE.

_Stereoscopic Angles._--I am concerned that my definition and solution of stereoscopic angles (a misnomer, for it should be _space_) in "N. & Q.," with subsequent illustrations, have not satisfied MR. SHADBOLT, as I am thus obliged to once more request room in your pages, and this time for a rather long letter. When I asserted that my method is the only correct one, it behoved me to be prepared to prove it, which I am, and will now do.

It seems that MR. SHADBOLT has not a knowledge of perspective, or, with a little reflection and trifling pains in linear demonstration on paper, he might have convinced himself of the accuracy of my method. It were well, then, to inform MR. SHADBOLT, that in perspective, planes parallel to the plane of delineation (in this case, the glass at back of camera) have no vanishing points; that planes at right angles to plane of delineation have but one; and that planes oblique have but one vanishing point, to the right or left, as it may be, of the observer's eye. This premised, let the subject be a wall 300 feet in length, with two abutments of one foot in front and five feet in projection, and each placed five feet from the central point of the wall, which is to have a plinth at its base, and a stone coping at top. On a pedestal four feet high, two feet wide, and six feet long, exactly midway betwixt the abutments, let an ass be placed, a boy astride him, a bag drawn before the boy, who holds up a long stick in line with the ass, &c., that is, facing the observer. The right distance for the observer's place is 450 feet. If the cameras be placed two inches and a half apart, on one line parallel to the wall, the stereographs will be in true perspective for the _two_ eyes, that is, all the planes at right angles to the plane of delineation will have _two_ vanishing points, which, being merely two inches and a half apart, will, in the stereoscope, flow easily into one opposite the eye; whilst the plinth, coping, and all lines parallel to them, will be perfectly horizontal; and the two pictures would create in the mind just such a conception as the same objects would if seen by the eyes naturally. This would be stereoscopic, true to nature, true to art, and, I affirm, correct.

Now, let the same subject be treated by Professor Wheatstone's method, when the cameras would be eighteen feet apart. Situated thus, if placed on one line, and that parallel to the wall, the extreme end at the right could not be seen by the camera at the left, and _vice versa_; so that they {420} must radiate from the centre when the glass at back of camera would be oblique to the wall, and the plinth, coping, top and bottom of pedestal, would have _two_ vanishing points, at opposite sides of the centre, or observer's eye; both sides of the ass, both the legs of boy, and two heads to the drum would be visible; whilst the two sides of pedestals would have each a vanishing point, serving for all lines parallel to them. But these vanishing points would be so far apart that they could not, in the stereoscope, flow into one: the result would be, that the buttresses would be wider at back than in front, as would also the pedestal, while the stick held by the boy would appear like _two_ sticks united in front. This would be untrue to nature, false to art, preposterously absurd, and I pronounce it to be altogether erroneous.

This being the case with a long distance, so must it be with shorter distances, modified in exact proportion to the diminution of space between the cameras, &c. For, let the object be a piece of wood three feet long, four inches wide, and six inches deep, with a small square piece one inch and six inches high, placed upright exactly on a line from end to end of the three feet (that is, one at each end) and midway between the sides. Let this arrangement be placed across another piece of wood three or four feet long, which will thus be at right angles to the piece at top. By my method all will be correct--true to nature and to art, and perfectly stereoscopic: whilst by the radial method (recommended by MR. SHADBOLT), with two feet space for cameras, there would be the top piece divided at the farther end, where there would be two small upright pieces instead of one; and this because the two vanishing points could not, in stereoscope, flow into one: whilst the lower piece of wood would have two vanishing points at opposite sides. This, then, being untrue to nature, untrue in art, in short, a most absurd misrepresentation, I pronounce to be utterly wrong. I have made the space two feet between cameras in order to show how ridiculous those pictures might become where there is an absence of taste, as, by such a person, two or ten feet are as likely to be taken as any less offensively incorrect.

As regards range of vision, I apologise to MR. SHADBOLT for having misconceived his exact meaning, and say that I perfectly agree with him.

With respect to the "trifling exaggeration" I spoke of, allow me to explain. For the sake of clearness, I denominate the angle formed from the focal point of lens, and the glass at back of camera, the angle of delineation; the said glass the plane of delineation and the angle formed by the stereograph to the eye, the stereoscopic angle. It must be borne in mind that the stereoscopic angle is that subtended by one stereograph and the eye. I find by experiments that the angle of delineation is very often larger than the stereoscopic angle, so that the apparent enlargement spoken of by MR. SHADBOLT does not often exist; but if it did, as my vision (though excellent) is not acute enough to discover the discrepancy, I was content. I doubt not, however, under such circumstances, MR. SHADBOLT would prefer the deformities and errors proved to be present, since he has admitted that he has such preference. I leave little doubt that, if desirable, the stereoscopic angle, and that of delineation, could be generally made to agree.

As to the means by which persons with two eyes, or with only one eye, judge of distance, I say not one word, that being irrelevant to this subject. But that the axes of the eyes approximate when we view objects nearer and nearer cannot be doubted, and I expressed no doubt; and it appears to me very probable that on this fact MR. SHADBOLT founds his conclusion that the cameras should radiate. This, however, ought not to be done for the reasons I have assigned. It will not do to treat the cameras as two eyes, and make them radiate because our eyes do; for it must be remembered that light entering the eyes is received on curved--whilst when it enters the cameras it falls on flat surfaces, occasioning very different results. And if this be maturely considered by MR. SHADBOLT, I believe his opinion will be greatly altered.

As to the model-like appearance, I cannot yet understand exactly why it should exist; but of this I am certain, the eyes naturally do not perceive at one view three sides of a cake (that is, two sides and the front), nor two heads to a drum, nor any other like absurdity; so that I perceive no analogy between this model-like appearance and natural vision, as stated to be the case by MR. SHADBOLT.

To confirm, practically, the truth of my illustrative proofs, I will send you next week some glass stereographs, to be placed at MR. SHADBOLT'S disposal, if he likes, and you will be so kind as to take charge of them.

T. L. MERRITT.

Maidstone.

* * * * *

REPLIES TO MINOR QUERIES.

_Berefellarii_ (Vol. vii., p. 207.).--JOHN WEBB mentions the _berefellarii_ as a distinct kind of mongrel dependents or half-ecclesiastics of the Middle Ages, dirty, shabby, ill-washed attendants, whose ragged clothes were a shame to the better sort of functionaries. He gave excellent and just reasons for his opinion, and a very probable construction of the sense of the word. But the etymon he proposes is rather unsatisfactory. Anglo-Saxonism is a very good thing; simplicity and common sense are very good things too. May not {421} _berefellarius_, the dirty raggamuffin with tattered clothes, be good monkish Latin for _bare-fell_ (i.e. _bare-skin_), or rather _bare-fellow_? the most natural metamorphosis imaginable. _Bere_ is the old orthoepy of _bare_; and every one knows that in London (east) a fell_ow_ naturally becomes a fell_ar_.

P.S.--Excuse my French-English.

PHILARETE CHASLES, Mazarinaeus.

Paris, Palais de l'Institut.

_"To know ourselves diseased," &c._ (Vol. viii., p. 219.).--

"To know ourselves diseased is half our cure."

This line is from Young's _Night Thoughts_, Night 9th, line 38.

J. W. THOMAS.

Dewsbury.

_Gloves at Fairs_ (Vol. viii., p. 136.).--As an emblem of power and an acknowledgment of goodness, "Saul set up a hand" after his victory over the Amalekites, 1 Sam. xv. 12., (Taylor's _Hebrew Concordance_, in voce ¤YDH¤), 2 Sam xviii. 18., Isaiah lvi. 5. The Ph[oe]nician monuments are said to have had sculptured on them an arm and _hand held up_, with an inscription graven thereon. (See Gesenius and Lee.) If, as stated by your correspondents in the article referred to, the glove at fairs "denotes protection," and indicates "that parties frequenting the fair are exempt from arrest," it is at least a remarkable coincidence. The Phoenicians were the earliest merchants to the west of England that we have any account of; can any connexion be traced historically between the Phoenician traffic and the modern practice of setting up a hand, or glove, at fairs? I well remember the feelings of awe and wonder with which I gazed when taken in childhood to see "the glove brought in" and placed over the guildhall of my native city (Exeter) at the commencement of "Lammas Fair." Has the glove been associated with this fair from its commencement? and if not, how far back can its use be traced? The history of the fair is briefly this: it existed before the Norman Conquest, and was a great mart of business; the tolls had belonged to the corporation, but King John took one-half, and gave them to the priory of St. Nicholas. Henry VIII. sold the fair with the priory; and anno second and third of Philip and Mary it was made over to the corporation, who have ever since been lords of the fair. (Izacke's _Memorials_, p. 19.; Oliver's _History of Exeter_, pp. 83. 158., &c.)

J. W. THOMAS.

Dewsbury.

I may add that at Barnstaple, North Devon, the evening previous to the proclamation of the fair, a large glove, decked with dahlias, is protruded on a pole from a window of the Quay Hall, the most ancient building in the town, which remains during the fair, and is removed at its termination. May not the outstretched glove signify the consent of the authorities to the commencement and continuance of the festivities, &c., and its withdrawal a hint for their cessation?

I may add also that on the morning of proclaiming the fair, the mayor and corporation meet their friends in the council chamber, and partake of spiced toast and ale.

DROFSNIAG.

_"An" before "u" long_ (Vol. viii., p. 244.).--The custom of writing _an_ before _u_ long must have arisen and become established when _u_ had its primitive and vowel sound, nearly resembling that of our _oo_, a sound which it still has in several languages, but seems to have lost in ours. The use of _an_ before _u_ long, was _then_ proper; habit and precedent will account for its retention by many, after the reason for it has ceased, and when its use has become improper. But although the custom is thus accounted for, there exists no satisfactory reason for its continuance, and I am sorry to learn from your correspondent that it is "increasingly prevailing."

J. W. THOMAS.

Dewsbury.

_"The Good Old Cause"_ (Vol. viii, p. 44.).--D'Israeli, in _Quarrels of Authors_, under the head of "Martin Mar-Prelate," has the following remarks on the origin and use of the expression, "The Good Old Cause:"

"It is remarkable that Udall repeatedly employed that expression, which Algernon Sidney left as his last legacy to the people, when he told them he was about to die for 'that _Old Cause_, in which I was from my youth engaged.' Udall perpetually insisted on '_The Cause_.' This was a term which served at least for a watch-word: it rallied the scattered members of the republican party. The precision of the expression might have been difficult to ascertain; and, perhaps, like every popular expedient, varied with 'existing circumstances.' I did not, however, know it had so remote an origin as in the reign of Elizabeth; and suspect it may still be freshened up and varnished over for any present occasion."

HENRY H. BREEN.

St. Lucia.

The following curious paragraph in the _Post Boy_, June 3-5, 1714, seems to have been connected with the Jacobites:

"There are lately arrived here the Dublin Plenipo's. All persons that have any business concerning the GOOD OLD CAUSE, let 'em repair to Jenny Man's Coffee House at Charing Cross, where they may meet with the said Plenipo's every day of the week except Sundays, and every evening of those days they are to be spoke with at the Kit-Cat Club."

E. G. BALLARD.

_Jeroboam of Claret, &c._ (Vol vii., p.528.).--Is a _magnum_ anything more than a bottle larger {422} than those of the ordinary size, and containing about two quarts; or a _Jeroboam_ other than a witty conceit applied to the old measure _Joram_ or _Jorum_, by some profane _wine-bibber_?

H. C. K.

_Humbug_ (Vol. vii., p. 631.).--The real signification of the word _humbug_ appears to me to lie in the following derivation of it. Among the many issues of base coin which from time to time were made in Ireland, there was none to be compared in worthlessness to that made by James II. from the Dublin Mint; it was composed of anything on which he could lay his hands, such as lead, pewter, copper, and brass, and so low was its intrinsic value, that twenty shillings of it was only worth twopence sterling. William III., a few days after the Battle of the Boyne, ordered that the crown piece and half-crown should be taken as one penny and one halfpenny respectively. The soft mixed metal of which that worthless coining was composed, was known among the Irish as _Uim bog_, pronounced _Oom-bug_, _i.e._ soft copper, _i.e._ worthless money; and in the course of their dealings the modern use of the word _humbug_ took its rise, as in the phrases "that's a _piece of uimbog_ (humbug)," "don't think to _pass off_ your _uimbug_ on me." Hence the word _humbug_ came to be applied to anything that had a specious appearance, but which was in reality spurious. It is curious to note that the very opposite of _humbug_, _i.e._ false metal, is the word _sterling_, which is also taken from a term applied to the _true_ coinage of the realm, as _sterling_ coin, _sterling_ truth, _sterling_ worth, &c.

FRAS. CROSSLEY.

_"Could we with ink," &c._ (Vol. viii., pp. 127, 180.).-If Rabbi Mayir Ben Isaac is the _bona fide_ author of the lines in question, or the substance of them, then the author of the _Koran_ has been indebted to him for the following passage:

"If the sea were ink, to write the words of my Lord, verily the sea would fail before the words of my Lord would fail; although we added another sea unto it as a farther supply."--_Al Koran_, chap. xviii., entitled "The Cave," translated by Sale.

The question is, Did Rabbi Mayir Ben Isaac, author of the Chaldee ode sung in every synagogue on the day of Pentecost, flourish before or since the Mohamedan era?

J. W. THOMAS.

Dewsbury.

_"Hurrah!"_ (Vol. viii., pp. 20, 277, 323.).--It would almost deem that we are never to hear the last of "Hurrah! and other war-cries." Your correspondents T. F. and SIR J. EMERSON TENNENT appear to me to have made the nearest approach to a satisfactory solution of the difficulty; a step farther and the goal is won--the object of inquiry is found. I suppose it will be admitted that the language which supplies the _meaning_ of a word has the fairest claim to be considered its _parent_ language. What, then, is the meaning of "Hurrah," and in whet language? As a reply to this Query, allow me to quote a writer in _Blackwood's Magazine_, April 1843, p. 477.

"'Hurrah!' means _strike_ in the Tartar language."--Note to art. "Amulet Bek."

So then, according to this respectable authority, the end of our shouts and war-cries is, that we have "caught a Tartar!"

Again, in _Blackwood_, 1849, vol. i. p.673., we read:

"He opened a window and cried 'Hourra!' At the signal, a hundred soldiers crowded into the house. Mastering his fury, the Czar ordered the young officer to be taken to prison."--Art. "Romance of Russian History."

Thus, in describing the "awful pause" on the night preceding the Russian attack on Ismail, then in possession of the Turks, Lord Byron says: