Part 5

Napoleon received his education chiefly in France; and it is to be presumed that the degree of instruction in grammar, orthography, &c., _ordinarily_ bestowed on educated Frenchmen, was not withheld from him.

To say the least of it, he was endued with sufficient intelligence to acquire an _ordinary_ knowledge of such matters.

Nay more: he was a man of the highest order of genius. Between the possession of genius, and a knowledge of orthography, there is, I admit, no necessary connexion. The humblest pedagogue may be able to spell more correctly than the greatest philosopher. But neither, on the other hand, does genius of any kind necessarily preclude a knowledge of spelling.

While still a young man, Napoleon wrote several works in French, such as the _Souper de Beaucaire_, the _Memoire sur la Culture du Murier_, &c. Some of the manuscripts of these writings must be still extant; and a comparison of the spelling of his unpretending youth, with that of his aspiring {204} manhood, would show at once whether the "_orthographe extraordinairement estropiee_" of his later productions was the result of habit or design.

The orthography of the French language is peculiarly intricate; and it is no uncommon thing to meet with educated men in that country who are unable to spell with accuracy. That Napoleon may have been in a similar predicament, would not be surprising; but that it should be said of the most _extraordinary_ man of the age, that his spelling is _extraordinairement estropiee_, seems inexplicable upon any fair supposition, except that he accounted the rules of spelling unworthy the attention of any but copyists and office drudges; or (which is more probable) that he wished this extraordinary spelling to be received as an indication of the great rapidity with which he could commit his thoughts to paper.

HENRY H. BREEN.

* * * * *

MEMOIRS OF GRAMMONT.

(Vol. viii., pp. 461. 549.; Vol. ix., p. 3.)

There appearing to be a strong feeling that a correct edition of these _Memoirs_ should be published, with the present inaccurate notes thoroughly revised, I send you a few notes from a collection I have made on the subject.

The proper orthography of the name is "Gramont," and the family probably originally came from Spain. Matta's friend, the Marquis de Sevantes, asserts the fact; and it is corroborated by the fact, that on the occasion of the Marshal de Grammont's demanding the hand of the Infanta Maria Theresa for Louis XIV., the people cried, "Viva el Marescal de Agramont, que es de nuestro sangue!" And the King of Spain said to the Marshal after the presentation of his sons, the Counts de Guiche and De Louvigny, "Teneis Muy Buenos y lindos hijos y bien se hecha de ver que los Agramonteses salen de la sangue de Espana."

The Grammont family had been so enriched and ennobled by its repeated marriages with the heiresses of great families, that, like many noble houses of our own times, members of it hardly knew their own correct surname: thus, in the famous declaration of the parliament of Paris against the Peers in 1717, on the subject of the Caps, it was said:

"The Grammonts have determined on their armorial bearings, and hold to those of the house of Aure. The Count de Grammont said one day to the Marshal, What arms shall we use this year?"

The Grammonts in the male line are descended from Sancho Garcia d'Aure, Viscount de l'Arboust. Menaud d'Aure, his lineal representative, married Claire de Grammont, sister and heiress of Jean, Seigneur de Grammont, and daughter of Francis, Seigneur de Grammont, and Catherine d'Andoins his wife.

Menaud d'Aure is the ancestor who is disguised in the _Memoirs_ as "Menaudaure" and "Menodore;" and in the notes, coupled with "la belle Corisande," they are styled two of the ancestresses of the family celebrated for their beauty.

Philibert, who was styled Philibert de Grammont and de Toulongeon, Count de Grammont and de Guiche, Viscount d'Aster, Captain of fifty men at arms, Governor and Mayor of Bayonne, Seneschal of Bearne, married on Aug. 7, 1567, Diana, better known as "La belle Corisande" d'Andouins, Viscountess de Louvigny, Dame de Lescun, the only daughter of Paul Viscount de Louvigny; who, although a Huguenot, was killed at the siege of Rouen, fighting under the command of the Duke de Guise. They had two children: Antoine, subsequently the first duke, and Catherine, who married Francois Nompar de Chaumont, Count de Lauzun, the ancestor of the celebrated Duke de Lauzun, who was first introduced at court by his relative the Marshal de Grammont.

This Philibert, Count de Grammont, was killed at the siege of La Fere in Aug. 1580. The connexion between his widow, the fair Corisande, and Henry IV., was subsequent to the Count's death.

The Duchy Peerage was created on Dec. 13, 1643. Antoine, the first duke, married, firstly, on Sept. 1, 1601, Louise, eldest daughter of the Marshal de Roquelaure; she died in 1610, leaving Antoine, subsequently the Marshal Duke de Grammont, and Roger, Count de Louvigny, killed in a duel in Flanders on March 18, 1629. The Duke de Grammont married, secondly, on March 29, 1618, Claude, eldest daughter of Louis de Montmorency, Baron de Boutteville; and had Henri, Count de Toulongeon, who died unmarried on Sept. 1, 1679; Philibert, the celebrated Chevalier de Grammont, who was born in 1621; and three daughters.

The Marshal de Grammont was one of the most celebrated men of the court of Louis XIV.: he was a favourite both of Richelieu and Mazarin, and married a niece of the former; and, as a wit, was not inferior to his brother the Chevalier. He sided with the Court during the wars of the Fronde; whilst the Chevalier in the first instance joined the Prince of Conde, probably from their mutual connexion with the Montmorency family. The Marshal died at Bayonne, on July 12, 1678, aged seventy-four years, leaving four children, of whom the Count de Guiche and the Princess de Monaco are well known.

The Chevalier de Grammont received his outfit from his mother, and joined the army under Prince Thomas of Savoy, then besieging Trin in Piedmont, which was taken on Sept. 24, 1643. The notes to the _Memoirs_ say May 4, 1639; but that {205} was a former siege by the French, then under the command of the Cardinal de la Vallette.

Probably this will be as much as you can afford space for at present, and I will therefore reserve any farther communications for a future Number.

W. H. LAMMIN.

Fulham.

* * * * *

THE MYRTLE BEE.

(Vol. viii., p. 593.)

Ere venturing an opinion as to the exact size of the above, as compared with the Golden-crested Wren, I should much like to ascertain where I am likely to meet with a faithful specimen of the latter? The Myrtle Bee is about half the size of the common Wren, certainly not larger: and I always took it for granted, the bird derived its name from its diminutiveness and the cover it frequented. I cannot say the bird was generally known in the neighbourhood, having only met with it when in company with sportsmen, in a description of country little frequented by others. I originally obtained the name when a boy from a deceased parent whom I accompanied out shooting; and for a succession of years the bird was familiar to me, in fact, to all sportsmen of that period who shot over the immediate locality; we all knew it, although its name was seldom mentioned. In fact, it never induced a thought beyond--"Confound the bees, how they bother the dogs"--or some such expression. I am unacquainted with the Dartford Warbler (_Sylvia provincialis_, Gmel.); but the description as quoted by Mr. Salmon from Yarrell's _Hist. of British Birds_, 1839, vol. i. p. 311. et seq., differs from the Myrtle Bee. The Warbler is said to haunt and build among furze on commons, and flies with jerks; whereas I never met with the Myrtle Bee among furze, neither does it fly with jerks: on the contrary, its short flight is rapid, steady, and direct. The description of the Warbler appears to agree with a small bird well known here as the Furze Chat, but which is out of all proportion as compared with the Myrtle Bee.

As regards the Query touching the possibility of my memory being treacherous respecting the colour of the bird, after a lapse of twenty-five years, more faith will be placed therein on my stating that I am an old fly-fisher, making my own flies: and that no strange bird ever came to hand without undergoing a searching scrutiny as to colour and texture of the feathers, with the view of converting it to fishing purposes. No such use could be made of the Bee. In a former Number I described the tongue of the Myrtle Bee as round, sharp, and pointed at the end, appearing capable of penetration. I beg to say that I was solely indebted to accident in being able to do so, viz. the tongue protruded beyond the point of the bill, owing to the pressure it received in my dog's mouth; the dog having brought it out enveloped in dead grass, from the foot of the myrtle bush.

CHARLES BROWN.

* * * * *

CELTIC ETYMOLOGY.

(Vol. ix., p. 136.)

MR. CROSSLEY seems to confine the word _Celtic_ to the Irish branch of that dialect. My notion of the words _iosal_ and _iriosal_ is taken from the Highland Gaelic, and the authorised version of the Bible in that language. Let Celtic scholars who look to the sense of words in the _four_ spoken languages, decide between us. There can be no doubt of the meaning of the two words in the Gaelic of Job v. 11. and Ps. iv. 6. In Welsh, and (I believe) in bas-Breton, there is no word similar to _uim_ or _umhal_, in the senses of _humus_ and _humilis_, to be found. In Gaelic _uir_ is more common than _uim_, and _talamh_ more common than either in the sense of _humus_; and in that of _humble_, _iosal_ and _iriosal_ are much more common than _umhal_.

It is certain that Latin was introduced into Ireland before it reached the Highlands, and Christianity with it; and therefore, as this word is not found in one branch of the Celtic at all, and is not a very common word in another, it is not unreasonable to suppose that it is of Latin origin. The sense which MR. CROSSLEY declares to be the only sense of _iosal_ and _iriosal_, is precisely that which is the nearest to the original meaning of _low_, and _low as the earth_; and this is also the sense which _humilis_ always bears in classical Latin, though Christianity (which first recognised _humility_ as a virtue, instead of stigmatising it as a meanness) attached to it the sense which its derivatives in all modern Romance languages, with the exception of Italian, exclusively bear.

Now MR. CROSSLEY has omitted to notice the fact that _umhal_ in Gaelic, and, I believe, _umal_ in Irish, have not the intermediate sense of _low_ and _cringing_, but only the Christian sense of _humble_, as a virtuous attribute. It seems natural that if _uim_ and _umal_ were radical words, the latter would bear the some relation to _uim_, in every respect, which _humilis_ does to _humus_, its supposed derivative. But unless _humus_ be derived from [Greek: chamai] (the root of [Greek: chthon] and [Greek: chthamalos]), how does MR. CROSSLEY account for the _h_, which had a sound in Latin as well as _horror_ and _hostilis_, both of which retain the aspirate in English, though they lose it in French? If MR. CROSSLEY will tell me why _horreur_ and _hostile_ have no aspirate in French, I will tell him why _heir_, _honour_, and _humour_ have none in English, though _humid_ (which is as closely connected with _humour_, as _humidus_ is with _humor_) retains the aspirate. {206}

These Celtic etymologies, however, though amusing, do not touch the main point, which is simply this: the usual mode of pronouncing the word _humble_ in good English society. What that is, seems to be so satisfactorily shown by your correspondent S. G. C., Vol. viii., p. 393., that all farther argument on the subject would be superfluous.

E. C. H.

* * * * *

PHOTOGRAPHIC CORRESPONDENCE.

_Improvements in the Albumenized Process._--Your expectation of being soon able to announce the successful manufacture of a new negative calotype paper, will, I am sure, be gladly received by many photographers, and especially by those who, like me, have been subjected to much disappointment with Turner's paper. For one sheet that has turned out well, at least half-a-dozen have proved useless from spottiness, and some sheets do not take the iodizing solution evenly, from an apparent want of uniformity in the texture of the paper, which causes the solution to penetrate portions the moment it is laid on the solution. Undoubtedly, when it does succeed, it is superior to Whatman's, but this is not enough to compensate for its extreme uncertainty.

In DR. DIAMOND'S directions for the calotype, he gave a formula for the addition of bromide of potassium to the iodide of potassium, but did not speak with much certainty as to the proportions. Will he kindly say whether he has made farther trials; and if so, whether they confirm the proportions given by him, or have led him to adopt any change in this respect? and will he likewise say whether the iodizing solution which he recommends for Turner's paper, is suitable also to Whatman's?

In albumenizing paper, I have not found it desirable to remove the paper very slowly from the solution. Whenever I have done so, it has invariably dried with waves and streaks, which quite spoiled the sheet. A steady motion, neither too slow nor too quick, I have found succeed perfectly, so that I now never spoil a sheet. I have used the solution with less albumen than recommended by DR. DIAMOND. My formula has been.--

Albumen 8 oz. Water 12 oz. Muriate ammon. 60 grs. Common salt 60 grs.

And this, I find, gives a sufficient gloss to the paper; but that of course is a matter of taste.

I have not either found it essential to allow the paper to remain on the solution three minutes or longer, as recommended by DR. DIAMOND. With Canson paper, either negative or positive, a minute and a half has been sufficient. I have used two dishes, and as soon as a sheet was removed, drained, and replaced, I have taken the sheet from the other dish. In this way I found that each sheet lay on the solution about one and a half minutes, and with the assistance of a person to hang and dry them (which I have done before a fire), I have prepared from forty to forty-five sheets in an hour, requiring of course to be ironed afterwards.

I have tried a solution of nitrate of silver of thirty grains to one ounce of distilled water, to excite this paper, and it appears to answer just as well as forty grains. I send you two small collodion views, takes by me and printed on albumenized paper prepared as mentioned, and excited with a 30-grain solution of nitrate of silver.

Is there any certain way of telling the right side of Canson paper, negative and positive? On the positive paper on one side, when held in a particular position towards the light, shaded bars may be observed; and on this side, when looked _through_, the name reads right. Is this the right or the wrong side?

C. E. F.

Since I wrote to you last, I have tried a solution of twelve grains only of nitrate of silver to the ounce of distilled water, for the paper albumenized, as mentioned in my letter of the 13th of February, and have found it to answer perfectly. The paper I used was _thin_ Canson, floated for one minute exactly on the solution; but I have no doubt the thick Canson will succeed just as well; and here I may observe that I have never found any advantage in allowing the paper to rest on the solution for three or four minutes, as generally recommended, but the contrary, as the paper, without being in the least more sensitive, becomes much sooner discoloured by keeping. My practice has been to float the thin Canson about half a minute, and the thick Canson not more than a minute.

C. E. F.

_Mr. Crookes on restoring old Collodion._--I am happy to explain to your correspondent what I consider to be the _rationale_ of the process.

The colour which iodized collodion assumes on keeping, I consider to be entirely due to the gradual separation of iodine from the iodide of potassium or ammonium originally introduced. There are several ways in which this may take place; if the cotton on paper contain the slightest trace of nitric acid, owing to its not being _thoroughly_ washed (and this is not as easy as is generally supposed), the liberation of iodine in the collodion is certain to take place a short time after its being made.

It is possible also that there may be a gradual decomposition of the zyloidin itself, and consequent liberation of the iodide by this means, with formation of nitrate of potassa or ammonia; but the most probable cause I consider to be the following. The ether gradually absorbs oxygen from the atmosphere, being converted into acetic acid; this, by its superior affinities, reacts on the iodide present, converting it into acetate, with liberation of hydriodic acid; while this latter, under the influence of the atmospheric oxygen, is very rapidly converted into water and iodine.

I am satisfied by experiment that this is one of the causes of the separation of iodine, and I think it is the only one, for the following reason; neither bromised nor chlorised collodion undergo the slightest change of colour, however long they may be kept. Now, if the former agencies were at work, there is no reason why bromine should not be liberated from a bromide as well as iodine from an iodide; but on the latter {207} supposition, could take place, the affinities of acetic acid being insufficient to displace hydrobromic acid.

A great many experiments which I tried last autumn, for the express purpose of clearing up this point, have convinced me that, _caeteris paribus_, the addition of free iodine to the iodizing solution, tends to diminish the sensitiveness of the subsequently formed iodide of silver. On paper, this diminution of sensitiveness is attended with some advantages, so that at present I hardly know whether to introduce the free iodine or not; but in collodion, as far as my experience goes, I see no reason for retaining it; on the contrary, everything seems to be in favour of its removal.

I can hardly imagine that the increased sensitiveness mentioned by MR. HENNAH is really due to the free iodine which he introduces. Such a result being so contrary to all my experience, I would venture to suggest that there must be some other cause for its beneficial action; for instance, commercial iodide of potassium is generally alkaline, owing to impurities present; the tincture of iodine in this case would render the collodion neutral, and unless a very large excess of iodine were introduced, its good effects would be very apparent. This, however, involving the employment of impure chemicals, is a very improbable explanation of a phenomenon observed by so excellent an operator as MR. HENNAH: there is most likely some local cause which would be overlooked unless expressly searched for.

With regard to the point, whether the free iodine is the _sole_ cause of the deterioration of old collodion, I should say decidedly not, at least in a theoretical view; the liberation of free iodine necessitates some other changes in the collodion, and the result must be influenced by these in one way or another, but practically I have as yet found nothing to warrant the supposition that they perceptibly interfere with the sensitiveness of the film.

In the above I have endeavoured as much as possible to avoid technicalities, in order to make it intelligible to amateurs; but if there be any part which may be considered obscure, on its being pointed out to me, I will endeavour to solve the difficulty.

WILLIAM CROOKES.

Hammersmith.

_Photographic Queries._--1. Would you, Sir, or DR. DIAMOND (DR. MANSELL is too far off), be kind enough to inform your readers whether DR. MANSELL'S process, recommended in No. 225., is equally applicable to _inland_ as to sea-side operations; or must we, in the one case, follow DR. DIAMOND, and in the other DR. MANSELL, and thus be compelled to prepare two sets of papers?

2. DR. MANSELL recommends, as a test for the iodized paper, a _strong_ solution of bichloride of mercury; may we ask _how strong_?

3. MR. SISSON'S developing fluid has undergone so many changes, and has been so much written about, that we are at a loss to discover or to determine whether it has been at length settled, in the mind of the inventor, that it will do equally well for negatives as for positives.

FOUR PHOTOGRAPHIC READERS.

[1. Both papers are equally available for both purposes. In actual practice we have not ourselves experienced any difference in their results.

2. It is quite immaterial. A drachm of bichloride dissolved in one ounce of spirits of wine will cause a cloudiness and a precipitate, if a very few drops are added to the tested water.

3. In general the salts of iron are more adapted for positives, and weak pyrogallic acid solutions for negatives; say one and a half grain of pyrogallic acid, twenty minims of glacial acetic acid, and an ounce of distilled water.]

* * * * *

Replies to Minor Queries.

_London Fortifications_ (Vol. ix., p. 174.).--In last week's Number is an inquiry as to "London Fortifications" in the time of the Commonwealth.

There is a Map by Vertue, dated 1738, in a folio _History of London_; there is one a trifle smaller, copied from the above; also one with page of description, _Gentleman's Magazine_, June, 1749. I subscribed to a set of twenty etchings, published last year by Mr. P. Thompson of the New Road; they are very curious, being facsimiles of a set of drawings done by a Capt. John Eyre of Oliver Cromwell's own regiment, dated 1643. The drawings are now I believe in the possession of the City of London.

A CONSTANT READER.

[The drawings referred to by our correspondent are, we hear, by competent judges regarded as _not genuine_. Such also, we are told, is the opinion given of many drawings ascribed to Hollar and Captain John Eyre, which have been purchased by a gentleman of our acquaintance, and submitted by him to persons most conversant with such drawings. Query, Are the drawings purporting to be by Captain John Eyre, drawings of the period at which they are dated?]

_Burke's Domestic Correspondence_ (Vol. ix., p. 9.).--In reference to a Query in "N.& Q." relative to unpublished documents respecting Edmund Burke, I beg to inform your correspondent N. O. that I have no doubt but that some new light might be thrown on the subject by an application to Mr. George Shackleton, Ballitore, a descendant of Abraham Shackleton, Burke's old schoolmaster, who I believe has a quantity of letters written to his old master Abraham, and also to his son Richard, who had Burke for a schoolfellow, and continued the friendship afterwards, both by writing and personally. When Richard attended yearly meetings in London, he was always a guest at Beaconsfield. Burke was so much attached to Richard, that on one of these visits he caused Shackleton's portrait to be painted and presented it to him, and it is now in the possession of the above family. I have no doubt but that an application to the above gentleman would produce some testimony.

F. H.

{208}

_Battle of Villers-en-Couche_ (Vol. viii. _passim_).--A good account of this celebrated engagement, with several authentic documents relating to what happened on the occasion, will be found in that very interesting little work, _Risen from the Ranks_, by the Rev. E. Neale (London, Longmans, 1853).

JAMES SPENCE HARRY.