Part 4

Whilst on the word _yew_, I may perhaps observe that I am hardly inclined now (though I once was so) to derive from it, as the author of the _Etymological Compendium_ does, the name _yeoman_: I think that yeoman is not _yew_-man, "a man using the yew-bow," but _yoke_-man, a man owning as much land as a _yoke_ of oxen could plough in a certain time.

J. G. CUMMINGS.

The following extract frown the _Handbook of English Ecclesiology_, p. 190., may be of some assistance to your correspondent:

"YEW. These were planted generally to the south of the church, to supply green for the decoration of churches at the great festivals; this tree being an emblem of immortality. It is a heathen prejudice which regards it as mournful. It is not probable yews were used as palms; the traditional name given to the withy showing that this was used in the procession on that festival."

WILLIAM W. KING.

Instead of troubling you with a particular answer to MR. WARDE'S inquiry, let me refer him to the _Forest Trees of Britain_, by the Rev. C. A. Johns, p 297. _et seq._, where, among many other curious and interesting facts, he will find the various reasons assigned by different authors, ancient and modern, for the plantation of yew-trees in churchyards. I do not find, however, that the origin ingeniously assigned by MR. WARDE is among the number.

[Phi].

I have always supposed, but I know not upon what authority, that the custom of planting yew-trees in churchyards originated in the idea of supplying the yeomen of the parish with bows, in the good old archery days.

IGNORAMUS.

* * * * *

STARS ARE THE FLOWERS OF HEAVEN.

(Vol. vii. _passim._)

I sent a Note to "N. & Q" some time ago, expressing my conviction that the original _locale_ of this beautiful idea was in St. Chrysostom. but, as I could not then give a reference to the passage which contained it, my suggestion was of course not definite enough to call for attention. I am now able to vindicate to the "golden-mouthed" preacher of Antioch this expression of poetic fancy, the origination of which has excited, and deservedly, so much inquiry among the readers of "N. & Q." It occurs in Homily X., "On the Statues," delivered at Antioch. I transcribe the passage from the translation in _The Library of the Fathers_:

"Follow me whilst I enumerate the meadows, the gardens, the flowering tribes; all sorts of herbs and their uses, their odours, forms, disposition; yea, but their very names; the trees which are fruitful and the barren; the nature of metals; that of animals, in the sea or on the land; of those that swim and those that traverse the air; the mountains, the forests, the groves; _the meadow below and the meadow above_; _for there is a meadow on the earth_, _and a meadow too in the sky_, THE VARIOUS FLOWERS OF THE STARS; the rose below, and the rainbow above!... Contemplate with me the beauty of the sky; how it has been preserved so long without being dimmed, and remains as bright and clear as if it had been only fabricated to-day; moreover the power of the earth, how its womb has not become effete by bringing forth during so long a time!" &c. Homily X., "On the Statues," pp. 178-9.

W. FRASER.

Tor-Mohun.

P.S.--Are the following lines, which contain this idea, and were copied long ago from the poet's corner of a provincial paper, with the title of "The Language of the Stars, a fragment," worth preserving?

"The stars bear tidings, voiceless though they are: 'Mid the calm loveliness of the evening air, As one by one they open clear and high, And win the wondering gaze of infancy, They speak,--yet utter not. Fair heavenly flowers Strewn on the floor-way of the angels' bowers! 'Twas HIS own hand that twined your chaplets bright, And thoughts of love are in your wreaths of light, Unread, unreadable by us;--there lie High meanings in your mystic tracery; Silent rebukings of day's garish dreams, And warnings solemn as your own fair beams."

* * * * *

BOOKS BURNED BY THE COMMON HANGMAN.

(Vol. viii., p. 272.)

Your correspondent BALLIOLENSIS should remember that at the time Dr. Drake published his {347} _Historia Anglo-Scotica_, 1703, there were no bounds to the angry passions and jealousies evoked by the discussion of the projected union; consequently, what may appear to as in the present day an insufficient reason for the treatment the book met with in the northern metropolis, wore a very different aspect to the Scots, who, under the popular belief that they were to _be sold_ to their enemies, saw every movement with distrust, and tortured everything said or written on this side the Tweed, upon the impending question, to discover an attack upon their national independence, their church, and their valour.

Looking at Dr. Drake's book, then, for the data upon which it was condemned, we find that it opens with a prefatory dedication to Sir E. Seymour, one of Queen Anne's Commissioners for the Union, and a high churchman, wherein the author distinctly ventures a blow at Presbytery when he says to his patron:

"The languishing oppressed Church of Scotland is not without hopes of finding in you hereafter the same successful champion and restorer that her sister of England has already experienced."

He farther calculated upon Sir Edward inspiring the neighbouring nation "with as great a respect for the generosity of the English as they have heretofore had to dread their valour." Now the Scots neither acknowledged the Episcopacy which Seymour is here urged to press upon them, nor had they any such slavish fear of the vaunted English prowess with which Dr. Drake would have them intimidated; without going farther, therefore, into the book, it appears to me that the Scots parliament had a right to consider it written in a bad spirit, and to pacify the people by condemning it.

Defoe, in his _History of the Union_ (G. Chalmers' edition, London, 1786), says:

"One Dr. Drake writes a preface to an abridgment of the _Scots History_, wherein, speaking something reflecting upon the freedom and independence of Scotland, the Scots parliament caused it to be burned by the hangman in Edinburgh."

In his _Northern Memoirs_, 1715, Oldmixon observes:

"They (the Jacobites) therefore put Dr. Drake, author of the _High Church Memorials_, upon publishing an antiquated Scotch history, on purpose to vilify the whole nation in the preface, and create more ill blood. This had the desired effect. The Scots parliament highly resented the affront, and ordered it to be burnt by the common hangman at Edinburgh."

D'Israeli, in his _Calamities of Authors_, has the following interesting notice of Drake:

"I must add one more striking example of a political author in the case of Dr. James Drake, a man of genius and an excellent writer. He resigned an honorable profession, that of medicine, to adopt a very contrary one, that of becoming an author by profession for a party. As a Tory writer he dared every extremity of the law, while he evaded it by every subtlety of artifice; he sent a masked lady with his MSS. to the printer, who was never discovered; and was once saved by a flaw in the indictment, from the simple change of an _r_ for a _t_, or _nor_ for _not_, one of those shameful evasions by which the law, to its perpetual disgrace, so often protects the criminal from punishment. Dr. Drake had the honor of hearing himself censured from the throne, of being imprisoned, of seeing his _Memorials of the Church of England_ burned at (the Royal Exchange) London, and his _Hist. Angl. Scot._ at Edinburgh. Having enlisted himself in the pay of the booksellers, among other works, I suspect, he condescended to practise some literary impositions; for he has reprinted Father Parsons famous libel against the Earl of Leicester, under the title of _Secret Memoirs of Robert Dudley, E. of L._, 1706, with a preface pretending it was printed from an old MS."

The same instructive writer adds:

"Drake was a lover of literature; he left behind him a version of Herodotus, and a system of anatomy, once the most popular and curious of its kind. After all this turmoil of his literary life, neither his masked lady nor the flaws in his indictments availed him; government brought a writ of error, severely prosecuted him; and abandoned, as usual, by those for whom he had annihilated a genius which deserved a better fate, his perturbed spirit broke out into a fever, and he died raving against cruel persecutors, and patrons not much more humane."

Another book before me, and one which shared the fate of Drake's in Edinburgh, is _The Superiority and Direct Dominion of the Imperial Crown of England over the Crown and Kingdom of Scotland, the true Foundation of a compleat Union reasserted_; 4to. London, 1705. This had appeared the year before, but was reproduced to answer the objections to it from the other side. It was written by William Attwood, Esq. If it required a nice discrimination to discover the offence of Drake, there was no such dubiety about this book, which goes the whole length of Scottish vassalage; and Mr. Attwood would lead us to believe that he knocks over the arguments of Hodges and Anderson[6] for Scottish independence with as much ease as he would ninepins.

{348}

Unfortunately these subjects are again forced upon us, and a reference to some of the books I have cited will enable gentlemen who are curious upon the point to judge for themselves in the matter of the present agitation of "Justice to Scotland."

J. O.

[Footnote 6: Jas. Hodges, a Scotch gentleman, who supported the Independency in a work entitled _War betwixt the Two Kingdoms considered_, for which, says Attwood, "he had 4800 Scots Punds given him for nothing but begging the question, and bullying England with the terror of her arms."

"An Historical Essay, showing that the Crown of Scotland is Independent; wherein the gross Errors of a late book, entitled 'The Superiority and Direct Dominion,' &c., and some other books for that purpose, are exposed by Jas. Anderson, A.M., Writer to His Majesty's Signet," Edin. 1705. For this work Anderson received the thanks of the Scottish parliament, as well as some pecuniary reward. (Chalmers' _Life of Ruddiman_.) The authors of these books having made out a case which was adopted as the national one, it is nowise surprising that they should hand over Drake and Attwood to the hangman for attempting to demolish it.]

On May 5, 1686, M. Claude's account of the Massacre of St. Bartholomew was burnt in the Old Exchange, "so mighty a power and ascendant here had the French ambassador." (Evelyn's _Memoirs_.)

JOHN S. BURN.

* * * * *

PHOTOGRAPHIC CORRESPONDENCE.

_Stereoscopic Angles._--As I presume that MR. T. L. MERRITT is, like myself, only desirous of arriving at truth, I beg to offer the following reply to his last communication (Vol. viii., pp. 275-6.), in which he misinterprets some observations of mine upon the subject in question.

With regard to the distance quoted by me of 2-1/4 inches, I look upon it as the same thing as intended by MR. MERRITT--that is, the _average_ distance between the centres of the eyes; and it amounts simply to a difference of _opinion_ between us; but, so far as that point is concerned, I am quite ready to adopt 2-1/2 inches as a standard, although I believe that the former is nearer the truth: however, I require more than a mere _assertion_ that "the _only_ correct space for the cameras to be apart is 2-1/2 inches, and this under every circumstance, and that _any_ departure from this _must_ produce error." I quote verbatim, having merely Italicised three words to point my meaning more clearly. An object being 5 feet distant, and another at 10 feet from the observer, a line between the eyes will subtend a very _much larger_ angle in the former than in the latter instance: hence the inclination of the axes of the eyes is the chief criterion by which people with the usual complement of those useful organs judge of proximity: but if half a dozen houses are made to appear as if 10 or 12 feet distant (by means of the increase of the angle between the points of formation of the pictures), while the angle which each picture subtends is relatively small; it is clear that both eyes will see in relief at a short distance half a dozen houses in a space not large enough for a single brick of one of them, and, _consequently_, _the view will appear as if taken from a model_. MR. MERRITT will object that an erroneous effect is produced; if he will refer to my statement (Vol. viii., p. 228.), he will find that it is precisely what I admitted; and he appears to have overlooked the _proviso_ attached to my next observation (judging by his comment thereon), so I shall make no farther remark upon that point, beyond inquiring why the defect he is content to put up with is called a _trifling exaggeration_, while that which is less offensive to me is designated as _absolute deformity_ and error? Persons with one eye are _not good judges_ of distance, and this may be easily tested thus:--Close one eye, and endeavour to dip a pen in an inkstand at some little distance not previously ascertained by experiment, with both eyes open; it will be found far less easy than would be imagined. One-eyed people, from habit, contrive to judge of distance mainly by _relative position_, and by moving the head _laterally_ cause a change therein: to them, all pictures are, to an extent, stereoscopic.

I am really amazed that my advocacy of the radial, instead of the parallel, position of the cameras should have been so misunderstood. Surely, it cannot be seriously asserted that the former will produce _two_ vanishing points, and the latter only one? And as to the supposition connected with the boy, the ass, and the drum, a camera that would produce the effect of showing both sides of the ass, both legs of the boy, and both heads of the drum, _with a movement of only 2-1/2 inches_, whether radially or parallel, would indeed be a curiosity. But if the motion of the camera extended over a space sufficiently large to exhibit the phenomena alluded to, then it would confirm what I have before advanced, viz. present the idea of a _small model_ of the objects, which could be so placed as to show naturally these very effects.

That the axes of the eyes are inclined when viewing objects, is readily proved thus:--Let a person look across the road at any object--say a shop-window; but stand so that a _lamp-post near him_ shall intervene, and be in a _direct line_ between the observer's nose and the object viewed. If he be requested to observe the post instead of the distant object, the pupils of his eyes will be seen to approach one another; and on again looking to the distant object, will instantly recede. The _range_ of vision is another point that appears to be misunderstood, as we are differing about words instead of facts. The column is an illustration that will _exactly_ suit my views; for I call the _range_ of vision the same if taken from side to side of the column, although it is perfectly true that the tangents to the two eyes differ by the angle they subtend: but certainly MR. WILKINSON'S case (Vol. viii., p. 181.) of seven houses and five bathing-machines in one picture, and five houses and eight machines in the other, illustrates an instance where the range of vision is not the same; but I contend that the stereoscopic effect is then _confined_ to five {349} houses and five machines, otherwise MR. WILKINSON'S supposititious case (_ibid._), of all machines in one, and all houses in the other, might be considered as stereoscopic.

In concluding this very lengthened and, I fear, tedious reply, I beg to assert that I am most willing to recant any proposition I may have put forth, if _proved_ to be erroneous; but I must have proof, not mere assertion. And farther, my willing thanks are always tendered to any one kind enough to correct an error.

GEO. SHADBOLT.

_Mr. Pumphrey's Process for securing black Tints in Positives._--The importance that appears to be attached by some of thy correspondents to the stereoscopic appearance of photographs, induces me to call the attention of those who may not have noticed it to the fact that, as all camera pictures are monocular, they are best seen by closing one eye, and then they truly represent nature; and the effect of distance (which so often appears wanting in photographs) is given with marvellous effect, so well indeed as to render the use of a stereoscope unnecessary. Like other photographers, I have been long seeking for a method, easy, cheap, and certain, for obtaining the black tints that are so highly prized by many in the French positives; and having at last attained the object of my search, I lose no time in laying it before my fellow-operators.

I obtain these results with a twenty-grain solution of nitrate of silver, a fact that will, I think, commend the plan to most operators. Thou wilt be able to judge of the result from the inclosed specimen.[7] I use Canson's paper, either albumenized or plain (but the former is far preferable). If albumen is used, I dilute it with an equal measure of water, and add half a grain of common salt (chloride of sodium) to each ounce of the mixture. This is applied to the paper with a soft flat brush, and all bubbles removed, by allowing a slender stream of the mixture to flow over its surface: it is then hung up to dry, and afterwards the albumen is coagulated with a hot iron. If the paper is used plain, a solution of common salt (half a grain to one ounce of water) is placed in a shallow tray, and the paper floated on its surface for a minute, and then hung up to dry. Excite, in either case, with an ammonio-nitrate of silver solution (twenty grains to one ounce of water), by floating the paper, prepared side downwards, for one minute, and hang up to dry.

Print tolerably strongly, and the proof will be of a reddish-brown. Fix in tolerably strong solution of hypo. sodae (I never weigh my hypo., so cannot give the proportion), that either has been in use some time, or else, if new, has been nearly saturated with darkened chloride of silver. When fixed, remove the proofs into another vessel of the same solution of hypo., to which has been added chloride of gold and acetic acid. The way I do this is to dissolve one drachm of chloride of gold in two and a half ounces (1200 minims) of water. Of this I take twenty minims (which will contain one grain Au Cl_3) and forty minims of acetic acid (Beaufoy's) for every dozen proofs (of the size of 7 x 9 in.), that I mean to operate on, and having mixed the gold and acetic acid with the solution of hypo., place the proofs in it till they attain the desired colour: they are then to be washed and dried in the usual way.

Knowing that so cheap and easy a process for obtaining these tints would have been a great boon to me a short time since, I lose no time in communicating this to the readers of "N. & Q." I shall feel a pleasure in explaining the plan more in detail to any photographer who may feel disposed to drop me a line.

WILLIAM PUMPHREY.

Osbaldwick, near York.

[Footnote 7: The specimens forwarded by MR. PUMPHREY are most satisfactory.--ED.]

* * * * *

Replies to Minor Queries.

_Baskerville the Printer_ (Vol. viii., p. 203.).--In reply to MR. ELLIOTT'S inquiry, I beg to say that Baskerville the printer was merely named as one who had directed his interment in unconsecrated ground. The exact place of his burial was not deemed a point of importance, but it having been questioned, I am able to state that the spot was correctly described by me. Nichols, in his _Literary Anecdotes_ (vol. viii. p. 456.), tells us that "Baskerville was buried in a tomb of masonry, in the shape of a cone, _under a windmill_ in his garden; on the top of this windmill, after it fell into disuse, he had erected an urn, and had prepared an inscription," of which MR. ELLIOTT has given a portion.

In his will, dated January 6, 1773, he directs his body "to be buried in a conical building heretofore used as a _mill_, which I have lately raised higher, and painted and prepared for it." It seems somewhat surprising that one, who shocked even John Wilkes as "a terrible infidel," should have printed a most beautiful folio Bible, at an expense of 2000l., and three or more editions of the Book of Common Prayer. Still more, in 1762, he tells Walpole that he had a grant from the University of Cambridge to print their 8vo. and 12mo. Common Prayer Books, and that for this privilege he laboured under heavy liabilities to the University. Baskerville doubtless regarded these books with a tradesman's eye, indifferent to the subjects of the works issued from his press, provided they sold. It would, however, be very unjust to this admirable printer to name him without praise for the distinguished beauty of his typography: it was clear and elegant, and he {350} was most curious in the choice both of his paper and ink.

J. H. M.

_Lines on Woman_ (Vol. viii., p. 204.).--The four beautiful lines which W. V. cites are the conclusion of a poem entitled "Woman," written by Eton Barrett. About the close of the last century, Eton Barrett and his younger brother Richard Barrett were at a private school on Wandsworth Common. My brothers and I were their schoolfellows. The Barretts were Irish boys; I think (but I speak very doubtfully) from Cork. Eton Barrett was a boy of more than ordinary talent. He was a genius among the lesser lights around him. I remember his writing a play with prologue and epilogue, which was performed before the master and his family, &c., with so much success, that the master prohibited any future dramatic performances, fearing, that he might incur blame for encouraging too much taste for the theatre. Our master gave up his school before the year 1800. Eton Barrett, a great many years ago, published a little volume of poems, of which "Woman" was one. I do not remember that I ever met him since our school-days. I have heard that he adopted Tory politics in Ireland, and that his brother attached himself to O'Connell, and conducted some newspaper; but this is mere report. Allow me to take this opportunity for observing, that many of the communications to "N. & Q.," such as those in which matters of fact are stated, ought, it may justly be urged, to be authenticated by the signature of the contributor. I feel the truth of this so strongly, that, though I do not sign my name, yet I have thought it right to make myself known to you, so that you know the person who contributes under the signature

F. W. J.

_Haulf-naked_ (Vol. viii., p. 205.).--The manor house of Halnaker, adjoining Walberton and Goodwood, is thus spoken of by Dallaway in his _Hist. of Sussex_, "Rape of Chichester," p. 131.:--"Halnaker, called in _Domesday_ 'Halneche,' and in writings of very ancient date Halnac, Halnaked, and Halfnaked." Then follows a short description of the old manor-house.

It has been lately visited by the Archaeological Association, under the direction of Lord Talbot de Malahide; and it is probable that the industrious antiquaries of Sussex will soon give us a more detailed account of it in their next volume of _Transactions_.

M. (2.)

_Cambridge and Ireland_ (Vol. viii., p. 270.).--The story of Irish merchants _landing_ at Cambridge is "very like a whale," "touched upon the deserts of Bohemia." I think, however, that I can trace the source of this glaring and oft-repeated error, as there really exists a documentary connexion between Irish cloth and the town of Cambridge.