Part 4

I cannot pretend to much acquaintance with the Swedish language, but I was quite well aware that that "is what is meant by the mysterious Su.-G." I was also aware that in the kindred Teutonic tongues the word runs through the various forms of _vogt_, _fogat_, _phogat_, _voget_, _voogd_, _fogde_, _foged_, _fogeti_, with the meaning of bailiff, steward, preses, watchman, guard or protector, tutor, overseer, judge, mayor, policeman; and I doubt not that _fogie_ belongs to the same family, though it has lost its tail. MR. KEIGHTLEY does not need to be told that words frequently degenerate in meaning, falling from the noblest to the basest, from the purest to the most obscene. Is there then anything improbable in supposing that a word once applied to the governor or chief keeper of a castle, came at last to be applied to all, even the meanest, of his subordinates? Dr. Jamieson asserts that the word _fogde_ in the Su.-G. has actually had that fate; can MR. KEIGHTLEY controvert him?

As a proof, _quantum valeat_, that the _Castle fogies_ were so called for some other reason than merely because of their being "old folks," I may mention that there was in Edinburgh, for more than a century, another body of veterans, called the Town Guard, or City Guard, maintained by the magistrates as a sort of military police, or gendarmerie, and finally disbanded in 1817. This corps was generally recruited from old soldiers; and during the period of my acquaintance with them (9½ years) they were all aged, and some of them very old men; yet I never heard the word _fogies_ applied to them. On the contrary, they were always distinguished from the fogies by the elegant appellation of the "Toon Rottens," or Town Rats, as well as by their facings, which were _dark blue_. Some, indeed, of my younger friends, who remember the "Rats" very well, say they never heard of the "Fogies" at all; only one of them, who lived when a boy at the Castle Hill, perhaps about forty years ago, recollects of the word "fogie" as being then applied to the soldiers of the ordinary veteran or garrison battalions, with blue facings, that had superseded the fogies in the keeping of the Castle; but of the veritable apple-green fogies of the older establishment, he has no remembrance. As my own recollections of Edinburgh go back to 1808, the fogies, I presume, must have been by that time extinct, for I never saw any of them, though I frequently heard them spoken of by those who had seen them.

I may mention also that while "fogie" was in use, and of well understood application in Scotland, {155} the phrase "old folks," or, to write it according to our vernacular pronunciation, "auld fo'k," was also, and continues to be, in general and familiar use; but nobody in Scotland, I dare say, ever imagined that "the auld fo'k" of his ordinary acquaintance were just "old fogies," or had anything whatever to do with that peculiar class of men, properly so called, the keepers of the royal castles. It is most remarkable, also, that while the corrupt derivative, as MR. KEIGHTLEY says "old fogie" is, has been almost quite forgotten among us, having disappeared with the men that bore the name of fogies, the parent form, as he would have "old folks" or "auld fo'k" to be, should remain in full vigour and common use, as part of our living speech. In a word, from all I can learn it would appear that the word "fogie," in its most general acceptation, means by itself, without the "old," an old soldier; and that "old fogie" is only a tautological form, arising from ignorance of its meaning. Be its origin, however, what it may, I have no hesitation now in expressing my conviction that MR. KEIGHTLEY'S etymology of the word is utterly groundless.

J. L.

City Chambers, Edinburgh.

* * * * *

DESCENDANTS OF JOHN OF GAUNT.

(Vol. vii., p. 628.)

All persons will, I think, agree with MR. WARDEN in his very just complaint of the carelessness with which many of the English Peerages are compiled. It would be a task, little short of a new compilation, to correct the errors and inaccuracies with which many of these productions abound, the less pardonable now, because of the facilities afforded for consulting the Public Records, should even our older genealogists, without such aids, be in some degree excused; but as MR. WARDEN invites, by a personal appeal, the rectification of a chronological error which has crept into all the Peerages, founded upon the authority of Dugdale, respecting the period of the death of Thomas, sixth Lord Fauconberge, I am induced to send you a few Notes, which a recent examination of the Records in the Tower of London has supplied.

When the facts are made patent, there will be no need to dwell upon the inconsistencies pointed out by MR. WARDEN, and the alleged incompatibility in regard to age for an union between two persons of some note in family history, the son of the first Earl of Westmoreland and his Countess Joan and the daughter and heir of the Lord Fauconberge, who formed an alliance from which the co-heirs are, it is believed, represented at this day.

The birth of William Nevill, Lord Fauconberge, afterwards created Earl of Kent, second son of a marriage which took place early in, or just before, the year 1397, may be assigned to in or about the year 1400; and we shall presently see that his future wife was born on the 18th of October, 1406, and married to him before the 1st of May, 1422.

Walter, fifth Lord Fauconberge, died on the 29th of September, 1362 (Esc. 36 Edw. III., 1st part, No. 77.), leaving a son Thomas (issue of his first marriage with Matilda, sister and co-heir of Sir William de Pateshull, Kt., Esc. 33 Edw. III., 1st part, No. 40., and _Rot. Orig._, 34 Edw. III., Ro. 2.), then a minor, under eighteen years of age.

Thomas, who was born circa 1345, was already in 1362 married to his first wife Constancia, by whom he does not appear to have left any issue surviving. His was rather an eventful life; some incidents not noticed by Dugdale will be briefly cited. On the 10th of August, 1372, being then a knight or chivaler, he had letters of protection on going abroad in the king's service, in the company of Thomas de Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick (_Rot. Franc._, 46 Edw. III.). Here it seems he forgot his allegiance, and having gone over to the French side was branded "tanquam proditor domini Regis Angliæ" (Esc. 5 Ric. II., No. 67., 6 Ric. II., No. 180., and 11 Ric. II., No. 59.). Can this have been the origin of the error in assigning his death to the year 1376? He was, however, yet living in 1401, as in that year he succeeded to the reversion of the estates which his step-mother Isabella (a sister of Sir John Bygot, Chivaler), the widow of Walter Lord Fauconberge, held in dower (Esc. 2 Hen. IV., No. 47.). Not long after this, and apparently a few years only before his death, and when somewhat advanced in years, he married a second time. I have not been able to ascertain to what family his wife Joan, or Johanna, belonged, but she survived her husband only a short time. About the period of his marriage, too (9th August, 1405), an occurrence of some importance to his descendants is recorded, namely, a grant by the king to Sir Thomas Bromflete and Sir Robert Hilton, of the custody and governance of all his estates in England, which had come into the king's hands "ratione ideociæ Thomæ Fauconberge, Chivaler," to hold during the life of the said Thomas. This grant, however, was in the following year, on 24th December, 1406, revoked and annulled, because the said Thomas had proved before the king and his council in Chancery, "quod ipse sanæ discretionis hactenus fuerit et ad tunc existat," and he was thereupon re-admitted to his estates which had descended to him "jure hæreditario post mortem Walteri Fauconberge patris sui, cujus hæres ipse est" (_Rot. Pat._, p. 1., 8 Hen. IV., m. 16.). He had only a few months before (15th February, 1406) obtained from the king livery of an estate which had come to him in {156} 1375 as one of the co-heirs, on his mother's side, of his grandmother Mabilia, a sister of Otho de Graunson, upon the death without issue of Thomas de Graunson, son of the said Otho. (_Rot. Pat._, p. 1., 7 Hen. IV., m. 6.)

Was there in fact any real ground for the suggestion of Lord Fauconberge's idiocy? This is one of the gravest imputations that can be cast upon a family, and it is a most unpardonable presumption to make it lightly and without justice; but it is somewhat singular that nearly fifty years afterwards, his only daughter and heir, born at the very period when this charge was being refuted, and when he himself was upwards of sixty years of age, became the subject of a commission issued to inquire of her alleged imbecility and idiocy. The commissioners sat at Gisburn in Cleveland in the county of York, on the 28th of March, 1463, and it was then found by the inquest that "Johanna Fauconberge nuper comitissa de Kent, fatua et ydeota est, et a nativitate sua semper fuit, ita quod se terras et tenementa sua neque alia bona sua regere scit, aut aliquo tempore scivit:" the jury also returned that she had not alienated any lands or tenements since the death of William, late Earl of Kent, her late husband. That Joan, the wife of Sir Edward Bethom, Kt., thirty years old and upwards, Elizabeth, the wife of Richard Strangeways, Esq., twenty-eight years old and upwards, and Alice, wife of John Conyers, Esq., twenty-six years old and upwards, were the daughters and heirs, as well of the said William the late earl, as of the said Joan the late countess. (Esc. 3 Edw. IV., No. 33.)

Thomas Lord Fauconberge died on the 9th of September, 1407, leaving the above-mentioned Joan, or Johanna, his daughter and heir, an infant of one year old. (Esc. 9 Hen. IV., No. 19.; see also Esc. 9 Hen. V., No. 42.) His widow Joan had assignment of dower after her husband's death on 20th October, 1408, and she herself died in the following year, on the 4th of March, 1409. (Esc. 10 Hen. IV., No. 15.) A later inquisition, however, taken on 1st of April, 1422 (Esc. 10 Hen. V., No. 22ᵃ.), states that the said Joan, widow of Sir Thomas Fauconberge, Chivaler, died on the 23rd of June, 1411. The first date is most probably the correct one, as a fact would be more likely to be accurately stated by a jury impanneled a few months only after the event recorded, than by an inquest taken after an interval of twelve or thirteen years.

On the formal proof of age (Esc. 10 Hen. V., No. 22ᵇ.) of Joan Fauconberge, daughter and heir of Thomas Lord Fauconberge and Joan his wife, taken at Northallerton, in the county of York, on the 1st of May, 10 Henry V., 1422, she was described as the wife of William Neville. She appears to have been born at Skelton in the said county, and baptized in the church there on the feast of Saint Luke the Evangelist (18th of October), 1406; and on the same feast in 1421, being the 9th of Henry V., she had accomplished her fifteenth year. Dugdale (tom. ii. p. 4.) has fallen into a singular mistake in alluding to this event, not to speak of the obvious inconsistency which those writers who follow his account have introduced in assigning the year of Lord Fauconberge's decease to 1372, thus making the daughter's birth to have occurred more than thirty years after her father's death. It is this:--One of the witnesses, who speaks to the period of the baptism of Joan, was named _Thomas_ Blawefrount the elder, fifty years of age and upwards, and the reason assigned by him for his remembrance of the event is as follows: "Et hoc scit eo quod Isabella filia prædicti Thomæ desponsata fuit cuidam Johanni Wilton, et idem Thomas fuit ad sponsalia eodem die quo præfata Johanna baptizata fuit, propter quod bene recolit quod præfata Johanna fuit ætatis prædictæ." Dugdale has by a strange oversight made the Isabella here described to be the daughter of Thomas Fauconberge, and sister of Joan, instead of the witness' own daughter.

It is not quite evident, from the language of the document which records the imbecility of the Countess of Kent in March 1463, whether she was then actually dead. It appears, however, clear that she survived her husband, who lived but a few months to enjoy his newly acquired dignity.

The account given by Dugdale of John, son of Thomas Lord Fauconberge, is scarcely intelligible. He says this lord "left issue John, his son and heir," and subsequently adds, "which John died without issue in the lifetime of his father."

Lord Fauconberge may have had a son by his former wife, but I have seen nothing to confirm this supposition. By an inquisition taken after the death of Sir Walter Fauconberge, Chivaler, at Bedford, on the 18th of November, 1415, it was found that Joan, widow of one Sir John Fauconberge, Chivaler, deceased, whom Thomas Brounflete, junior, afterwards married, was then living, and that she granted to the said Sir Walter all the estate which she had in certain rents payable by Matilda Wake, formerly the wife of Sir Thomas Wake, Chivaler; that the said Sir Walter died on the 1st of September, 1415, but the jurors knew not who was his heir. (Esc. 3 Hen. V., No. 15.) Dugdale (vol. ii. p. 234.) cites a feoffment dated 9 Hen. IV., 1407-8, which shows that Thomas Brounflete, Esq., was then married to the said Joan, and consequently that Sir John Fauconberge was dead at that time.

I must close this, for I fear I have now exceeded the limits which your valuable paper may, with justice to others, spare to subjects of this nature.

WILLIAM HARDY.

* * * * *{157}

PHOTOGRAPHIC CORRESPONDENCE.

_Lining of Cameras._--I find nothing so good to line a camera with as _black velvet_; for, black the inside of a camera as you will, if it is hard wood or any size used, there will be reflection from the bottom, which, with very sensitive plates, gives a dulness which, I think I may say, is caused by this reflection. I think even the inside of the lens tube might advantageously be lined with black velvet.

W. M. F.

_Cyanuret of Potassium._--I have been using lately 12 grs. of cyanuret of potassium in 1 oz. of water for clearing the collodion plates, instead of hypo. There is one advantage, that there are no crystals formed if imperfectly washed, which is too common with hypo. You must take care to well wash off the developing fluid, whether pyrogallic, protonitrate, or protosulphite: if you use the latter 40-grains strong, the _whitest_ pictures can be obtained, nearly as white as after bichloride of mercury. A good formula to make it is--

Distilled water 11 drachms. Alcohol 1 drachm. Nitric acid 20 minims. Protosulphate of iron 60 grains.

This I know to act well with care, and it will keep a long time.

I find protonitrate solution--

Water 1½ ounce. Barytes 150 grains. Protosulph. 150 "

mixed in a proportion of 8 to 4, with a 3-grain solution of pyrogallic--a very nice developing mixture; and, if poured back again after being used, will suffice 6 or 8 times over; but it is _best_ new.

W. M. F.

_Minuteness of Detail on Paper._--Being fond of antiquarian studies, and having learned from "N. & Q." the value of photography to the archæologist, I have serious thoughts of taking up the practice of the art. Before doing so, however, I am anxious to learn how far that minuteness of detail which I so much prize, and which is of such value to the antiquary, is to be obtained by any of the processes on paper. I have seen some specimens produced by collodion which certainly exhibit that quality in an eminent degree. Is anything approaching to such minuteness attainable by any of the Talbotype processes?

F. S. A.

[Had this Query reached us last week, we should then, as now, have replied in the affirmative. We should then have referred, for evidence in support of our statement, to Mr. Fenton's Well Walk, Cheltenham, published in the _Photographic Album_, and to Mr. Buckle's View of Peterborough. But we may now adduce a work almost more remarkable for this quality, namely, a view of Salisbury, by Mr. Russell Sedgefield, a young wood engraver, which is about to appear in the forthcoming part of the _Photographic Album_.

To this beautiful specimen of the art we may certainly refer as a proof that it is quite possible to obtain upon paper the greatest nicety of detail; in short, every minuteness that can be desired, or ought to be attempted.]

_Stereoscopic Angles._--I think there can be little doubt that MR. T. L. MERRITT (Vol. viii., p. 110.) has solved the problem as to stereoscopic angles: there can be no reason why one angle should be used for _near_ objects, and another for _distant_. A _true_ representation of nature is required: and, as we cannot view any object with one of our eyes eighteen or twenty feet separate from the other, so it appears to me a true picture cannot be obtained by taking two views so far apart. The result must be to _dwarf_ the objects; and, in confirmation of this, I may state that I was not convinced that the stereoscopic views were taken from nature till I understood the cause of their reduction. All views that I have been able to purchase, of out-door nature, appear to me to be taken from models, and not from the objects themselves.

A view of a tower conveys the idea, not of a tower of stone and lime, but of a very careful model in cardboard; and this is exactly what might be expected from taking the views at so wide an angle. A church is seen, as it would be seen by a giant whose eyes were twenty feet apart, or as we would see a small model of it near at hand.

I hope that some of your photographic correspondents will settle this question, by taking views of the same object both by the wide and close angle, and, by comparing them, ascertain which conveys to the mind the truest representation of nature.

T. B. JOHNSTON.

Edinburgh.

_Sisson's developing Solution_ (Vol. vii., p. 462.).--Will you be so good as to ask MR. SISSON if he finds the above to answer as a bath to plunge the plate _into_, instead of pouring on, as in the case of pyrogallic?

He is entitled to the warm thanks of all photographers for the discovery of a solution which produces such pleasing tints with so much ease; and it needs but the qualification I inquire after to render it perfect. I have used it when at least three weeks made, and am not sure that it is not even better than when fresh.

S. B.

P.S.--Why not devote a little more space to this fascinating art in "N. & Q."? I think, if anything, it grows less latterly.

_Multiplying Photographs._--In Vol. viii., p. 60., you reprint a communication from Sir W. Herschel which has appeared in _The Athenæum_.

{158}

It describes a method of printing from glass negatives, but there being no _cut_ renders the meaning somewhat obscure.

In the last number of the _Photographic Journal_ (21st ult.), some mention is made of this letter. They say it proves to be one already long in use, Mr. Kilburn having practised it for four years. I am very desirous of obtaining more information about it. I want to know the length of the box or camera required; and also the focus of the lens, and the best size. Probably Mr. Kilburn or Sir W. Herschel would one of them be so kind as to say.

W. M. F.

What kind of lens should be used for taking enlarged copies of glass negatives according to Mr. Stewart's plan? and will the same lens also diminish the picture? Will not the usual camera lens act?

PLY.

[The usual compound lens is all that is required.]

Would you have the goodness to explain, in some detail, the two methods by which Mr. Stewart and Mr. Kilburn multiply photographs in a reduced or magnified size; the one by reflected light, the other by transmitted. Mr. Stewart's experiments are upon glass, Mr. Kilburn's on cameras and daguerreotypes. I have never seen any description of this latter process, or of the method of preparing the stereoscope objects: vide _Athenæum_, July 30, 1853.

I observe with great pleasure that the cost of apparatus is becoming less, &c.

AMATEUR.

[However much we may agree in the views expressed in the latter part of AN AMATEUR'S letter, we have been obliged to omit it, as it violates our rule of not opening the columns of "N. & Q." to the recommendation of any particular manufacturer.]

_Is it dangerous to use the Ammonio-Nitrate of Silver?_ (Vol. viii., p. 134.).--No: it is now generally used as the best of _marking inks, without preparation_; and we have never yet heard of an explosion from its use. Mr. Delamotte has evidently confounded this preparation with the chloride of silver precipitated with _strong ammonia_, which, when dried, forms the article known as _fulminating silver_; or by adding to the oxide of silver lime-water, and afterwards a strong solution of ammonia, a black powder is thrown down, which, when dried, is known as _Berthollet's fulminating silver_. There is also one other, formed by adding chloric acid to oxide of silver; after drying this, and then adding potassa to a solution of it, the precipitate, by again being dried, becomes an explosive compound.

The photographer forms a weak solution for his purpose with one of the least soluble and _weakest_ of the ammoniacal preparations, and which, by drying _around the stopper of the bottle_, is very unlikely to become explosive, from its wanting the addition of another element as necessary to the formation of an explosive compound. For my own part, I must say, that I have found, from experience, all the compound solutions of silver keep much better, and the photogenic effect more satisfactory, by mixing only so much as I may require for immediate use, at this time of the year especially.

J. H.

* * * * *

Replies to Minor Queries.

_Burke's Marriage._--I am obliged to MR. GANTILLON (Vol. viii., p. 134.), but the authority referred to does not answer my questions (Vol. vii., p. 382.): When and _where_ was Burke married? There is no doubt as to _who_ he married. But some biographers say the ceremony took place in 1766, others in 1767. Some leave it to be inferred that he was married at Bath, others in London.

B. E. B.

_Stars and Flowers_ (Vol. iv., p. 22.; Vol. vii., pp. 151. 341. 513.).--To the passages quoted from Cowley, Longfellow, Hood, Moir, and Darwin, may be added the following ingenious application of this metaphorical language:--

"Alas for life!--but we will on with those Who have an age beyond their being's day. Mount with our Newton where Light ever flows; See him unveil its marvels--and display The hidden richness of a single ray! Unfold its latent hues like blossoms shed, Or flowers of air, outshining flowers of May! A luminous wreath in rainbow beauty spread, The noblest Fame could leave round starry Newton's head."

_The Mind, and other Poems_, by Charles Swain, p. 64.

BIBLIOTHECAR. CHETHAM.

_Odour from the Rainbow_ (Vol. iii. pp. 224. 310.).--This idea has been traced to Bacon's _Sylva_, Browne's _Britannia's Pastorals_, Snow's _Miscellaneous Poems_, and to a Greek writer referred to by Coleridge. Georgius de Rhodes, in his _Peripatetic Philosophy_, mentions the same effect of the rainbow, and quotes Pliny:

"Dico sexto, iridis effectus duos præcipue numerari. Primus est, quod plantas, arbores, frutices, quibus incubuerit, efficit odorationes. Tradunt, inquit Plinius lib. xii. c. 24., in quocunque frutice incurvetur cœlestis arcus, eandem quæ sit aspalato suavitatem odoris existere; aspalato autem inenarrabilem quandam. Terra etiam ipsa suavius halare dicitur."

In the annotations on Pliny, _in loco_, Aristotle is referred to in _Problem. Quæst._ xii.

BIBLIOTHECAR. CHETHAM.