Chapter 4

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 {15} 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 Archaeological 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:

Sodae hyposul. 3 oz. Argent. chlorid. 70 grs. Potassii iodidi 5 grs. Pyrogallic acid 1-1/2 to 2 grs.

The iodide of potassium I add on the same principle as MR. POLLOCK's iodide of silver, but as being {16} 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.--

Chloride of ammonium 5 grs. Water 1 oz.

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 versa_, 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. {17}

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. 2-1/2 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 2-1/2 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 2-1/2 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.

[Phi]. (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.

* * * * *

Replies to Minor Queries.

_Verney Note decyphered_ (Vol. vii., p. 568.).--I am extremely obliged to MR. THOMPSON COOPER for his decyphered rendering of Sir Ralph Verney's note of a speech or proceeding in parliament. The note itself is not now in my possession, but I have requested the owner to be good enough to re-collate it with the original, and if any mistakes should appear in the copy, or the printing (which is very likely), I will give you notice of the fact, that the doubtful words in MR. COOPER's version may, if possible, be set right.

Students in the art of decyphering may be pleased to have the key to the cypher recorded in {18} your pages. I therefore give it you as discovered by MR. COOPER, and beg, in the strongest way, to reiterate my thanks to that gentleman.

2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, f, r, k, t, b, h, s, w, c, g, p, d, a, e, i, o, u,

20, 22, 27, 28. l, x, m, n.

The cyphers (if any) for _j, q, y, z_ have not been discovered, and the numbers 1, 19, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26 remain unappropriated.

JOHN BRUCE.

_Emblems by John Bunyan_ (Vol. vii., p. 470.).--This work which MR. CORSER has not met with, is in the folio edition of his works, forming pp. 849. to 868. of vol. ii. (1768). The plates are small woodcuts of very indifferent execution.

E. D.

_Mr. Cobb's Diary_ (Vol. vii., p. 477.).--This volume was printed solely for private distribution by the family, who also presented their relatives and friends (amongst whom the writer was reckoned) with another volume compiled on the decease of Francis Cobb, Esq., the husband of Mrs. Cobb, and entitled, _Memoir of the late Francis Cobb, Esq., of Margate, compiled from his Journals and Letters_: Maidstone, printed by J. V. Hall and Son, Journal Office, 1835. Both of these are at the service for perusal of your inquiring correspondent, JOHN MARTIN.

E. D.

"_Sat cito si sat bene_" (Vol. vii., p. 594.).--I have not Twiss at hand; but I think F. W. J. is mistaken in calling it a "favourite maxim" of Lord Eldon. I remember to have heard Lord Eldon tell the story, which was, that the Newcastle Fly, in which he came up to town, in I forget how many days, had on its panel the motto, "Sat cito si sat bene:" he applied it jocularly in defence of his own habits in Chancery.

C.

_Mythe versus Myth_ (Vol. vii., pp. 326. 575.).--It gives me much pleasure to have afforded MR. THIRIOLD an opportunity for displaying so much learning and sagacity; but I hope he does not imagine that he has confuted me. As I only spoke of words which, like [Greek: muthos], had a single consonant between two vowels, such words as _plinth_, _labyrinth_, &c. have nothing to do with the question. If _mythe_, differing from the other examples which are to be found, happens to have _the_ for its termination, and thus resembles words of Anglo-Saxon origin, I cannot help it, but it was formed _secundum artem_. As to MR. THERIOLD's _m[=y]th_, unless so written and printed, it will always be pronounced _m[)y]th_, like the French _mythe_.

As to the _hybrid_ adjectives, I only wished to avoid increasing the number of them. The French, I believe, have only one, _musical_; for though, like ourselves, they have made substantives of the Greek [Greek: mousike] (sc. [Greek: techne]), [Greek: phusike], &c., in all other cases they retain the Greek form of the adjective, as in _physique_, substantive and adjective, while we generally have pairs of adjectives, as _philosophic, philosophical_; _extatic, extatical_; &c. Some may think this an advantage; I do not.

THOS. KEIGHTLEY.

_The Gilbert Family_ (Vol. vii., p. 259).--If your correspondent seeking genealogical information in reference to my ancestors, calls on me, I will show him a presentation copy of _A Genealogical Memoir of the Gilbert Family in Old and New England_, by J. W. Thornton, LL.B., Boston, U. S., 1850, 8vo. pp. 24, only fifty printed.

JAMES GILBERT.

_Alexander Clark_ (Vol. vii., p. 580.).--I should feel obliged if J. O. could find leisure to communicate to "N. & Q." some particulars relative to Clark. He is supposed to have been the author of a curious poem: _The Institution and Progress of the Buttery College of Slains, in the Parish of Cruden, Aberdeenshire; with a Catalogue of the Books and MSS. in the Library of that University_: Aberdeen, 1700. Mr. Peter Buchan thus mentions him in his _Gleanings of Scarce Old Ballads_:

"Clark, a drunken dominie at Slains, author of a poetical dialogue between the gardeners and tailors on the origin of their crafts, and a most curious Latin and English poem called the 'Buttery College of Slains,' which resembled much in language and style Drummond of Hawthornden's 'Polemo Middino.'"