Part 4

"5. ... placed her (the infant) upon the third _step of the altar_."

From this comparison it would appear, that the "stairs about the temple" were synonymous with the "steps of the altar."

I would therefore suggest, for the consideration of those better acquainted with the subject, that these Psalms were adapted to be sung (not _on_ the steps, as some think, but) as a kind of introit while the priests ascended the steps of the altar.

To show their adaptation for this purpose, it may be worth remarking, that they are all, except cxxxii., introits in the first Prayer Book of Edward VI.

J. R. G.

Dublin.

* * * * *

AMERICAN POEMS IMPUTED TO ENGLISH AUTHORS.

(Vol. viii., pp. 71. 183.)

The southern part of the U. S. seems to make as free with the reputations of English authors, as the northern with their copyright. The name of the South Carolina newspaper, which, with so much confirmatory evidence, ascribed _The Calm_ to Shelley, is not given. If it was the _Southern Literary Messenger_, the editor has been at it again. The following began to appear in the English papers about Christmas last, and is still "going the round:"

"THE SORROWS OF WERTHER.--The _Southern Literary Messenger_ (U. S.) for the present month contains, in 'The Editor's Table,' the following comic poem of Thackeray's; written, we are told, 'one morning last spring in the _Messenger_ office,' during a call made by the author:--

'Werther had a love for Charlotte, Such as words could never utter. Would you know how first he met her? She was cutting bread and butter.

'Charlotte was a married lady, And a moral man was Werther; And for all the wealth of Indies, Would do nothing that might hurt her.

'So he sigh'd, and pined, and ogled, And his passion boil'd and bubbled, Till he blew his silly brains out, And no more by them was troubled.

'Charlotte, having seen his body Borne before her on a shutter, Like a well-conducted person, Went on cutting bread and butter.'"

I believe that Mr. Thackeray knows the value of his writings and his time too well to _whittle_ at verses in the _Messenger_ office, and leave his chips on the floor; and that he is too observant of the laws of fair wit to make a falsification and call it a burlesque. _The Sorrows of Werther_ is not so popular as when known here chiefly by a wretched version of a wretched French version, and many who read these stanzas will be satisfied that the {378} last conveys, at worst, a distorted notion of the end of Goethe's story. To prevent this misapprehension, I quote from Mr. Boylan's translation all that is told of Charlotte after Werther's suicide:

"The servant ran for a surgeon, and then went to fetch Albert. Charlotte heard the ringing of the bell; a cold shudder seized her. She wakened her husband, and they both rose. The servant, bathed in tears, faltered forth the dreadful news. _Charlotte fell senseless at Albert's feet._

. . . . . . .

"The steward and his sons followed the corpse to the grave. Albert was unable to accompany them. _Charlotte's life was despaired of._"

Perhaps "despaired of" is too strong a word for "man _fuerchtete fuer_ Lottens Leben;" but there is no peg on which to hang the poor joke of the last stanza.

H. B. C.

U. U. Club.

* * * * *

"FEATHER IN YOUR CAP."

(Vol. ix., p. 220.)

In reply to MR. GATTY'S question, I beg to state that the Indian wears an eagle's feather for every enemy he has slain. I have seen a boy of fifteen thus decorated, and was assured that it had been lawfully won.

The feather is usually stuck into the hinder part of the turban, or head-dress, and either projects straight out, or hangs down the back. This is exactly the fashion in which the Chinese wear the peacock's feather; and it also is a mark of distinction for warriors, a military institution similar to our knighthood, or, perhaps, what knighthood once was. (See De Guignes and Barrow, &c.) I think McKenzie speaks of the eagle's feather, but cannot quote just now. According to Elphinstone, the "Caufirs of Caubul" (Siah-posh?) stick a long feather in their turbans for every Mussulman they have slain.

The similarity of style in wearing their feathers, and, above all, the coincidence of both being the reward of merit, induces a belief that in times long gone by a relationship may have existed between the Chinese and the American; a belief that is strengthened by other and more curious testimony than even this.

The head-dress, or coronet of upright feathers, to which MR. GATTY seems to allude, I have never heard of, as associated with warlike deeds. The coronet of feathers, moreover, does not appear to have been peculiar to America. In the _Athenaeum_ for 1844 is given the representation of a naval engagement, in which one party of the combatants "wear head-dresses of feathers, such as are described in ancient Hindu records, and such as the Indian Caciques wore when America was discovered by Columbus," &c. (p. 172.). Moreover, "the Lycians had caps adorned with crests, stuck round with feathers," &c. (Meyrick's _Ancient Armour_, &c., vol. i. p. xviii.) We may suppose this to have resembled the coiffure of the Mexican and other North American tribes.

Mr. Rankin says the Peruvian Incas wore, as a distinction, two plumes on the front of the head, similar to those represented in the portraits of Tamerlane. (See _Conquest by the Mogols, &c._, p. 175.) I have seen, among the Wyandots of Sandusky, heads which one might suppose had been the originals of the portraits given in his plate: turban made of gaudy-coloured silk, with two short thick feathers stuck upright in front; the one red, the other white tipped with blue, the great desideratum being to have them of different colours, as strongly contrasted as possible.

The Kalmucs, when they celebrate any great festival, always wear coloured owls' feathers in their caps, &c. (See _Strahlenburg_, 4to., p. 434.) The Dacotas also wear owls' feathers. (See Long's _Expedition to Rocky Mountains_, vol. i. p. 161.) The Usbeck Tartar chiefs wore (perhaps _do_ wear) plumes of herons' feathers in their turbans; and the herons' plume of the Ottoman sultan is only a remnant of the costume in which their ancestors descended from Central Asia.

A. C. M.

Exeter.

* * * * *

PERSPECTIVE.

(Vol. ix., p. 300.)

Your correspondent MR. G. T. HOARE is rather bold in describing the case he does as a "very common error;" and I cannot agree with him that the facade of Sennacherib's Palace (Layard's 2nd book on _Nineveh_) is an instance of the kind. The theory that horizontal lines in the plane of the picture should converge to a point on the horizontal line right and left of the visual ray, is by no means new; in truth, every line according to this view must form the segment of a circle more or less, according to circumstances. Apply this principle to the vertical lines of a tower or lofty building, and every such structure must be represented diminished at the top, the vertical lines converging to a vanishing point in the sky.

Some years since, this theory was brought forward by Mr. Parsey, and the subject fully discussed at scientific meetings. There was much ingenuity in the arguments employed, but the illustrations were so unsatisfactory that the system has never gained ground. The principles of perspective are most ably exemplified in many well-known works, as they set forth very satisfactory modes of delineation. The limits of your periodical prevent a fuller correspondence on this subject, or I think it would not be difficult to {379} satisfy MR. HOARE that there are great difficulties attending his proposition.

No recent discoveries in the art of perspective have tended to more truthful representations than those produced by the recognised systems usually adopted. The method of showing the internal courts, &c. of large groups of buildings by isometrical perspective, although very useful for developing architects' and engineers' projects, is not a system that will bear the test of close examination.

BENJ. FERREY.

G. T. HOARE is quite right in saying "that every line above or below the line of the horizon, though _really_ parallel to it, _apparently_ approaches it, as it is produced to the right or left." But he seems to forget that the same holds good in the picture as in the original landscape, the part opposite the eye being nearer to it than the margin of the paper. To produce the same effect with _converging lines_, the drawing must be made to assume the form of a segment of a circle, the eye being placed in the centre.

JOHN P. STILWELL.

Dorking.

I must beg leave to differ most decidedly with MR. G. T. HOARE on this point. If it is in accordance with the principles of perspective that, supposing the eye and the picture in their true positions in relation to each other and to the objects represented, every line drawn from the eye to any point of a real object will pass through its corresponding point in the picture, then the supposed wall will form the base of a pyramid, of which the eye will be the apex, and the representation of the wall in the picture a section parallel to the base, and consequently mathematically similar to the base itself. It is perfectly true, as MR. HOARE says, "that every line above or below the line of the horizon, though _really_ parallel to it, _apparently_ approaches it, as it is produced to the right or left." But he forgets that this fact applies to the picture as well as to the object. In fact, the picture is an object, and the parallel lines in it representing the wall must have the same apparent tendency to one another as those in the wall itself.

[Greek: Halieus]

Dublin.

I am glad MR. G. T. HOARE has called attention to the defective state of the art of perspective. His remarks, however, are too narrow. The fact is, that _any_ two parallel straight lines appear to converge at one or both ends, _and one or both lines assume a curvilinear shape_. For a notable example, the vertical section of the Duke of York's column in Waterloo Place, from all points of view, appears to bulge at the point of sight, and to taper upwards by a curvilinear convergence of the sides.

C. MANSFIELD INGLEBY.

* * * * *

LORD FAIRFAX.

(Vol. ix., p. 10.)

The following is all the information which I have been able to collect respecting the present possessor of the title of Fairfax of Cameron, in answer to the third Query of W. H. M. It gives me pleasure to communicate it.

The Lords Fairfax have been for several generations natives of the United States. The present possessor of the title is not so called, but is known as _Mr._ Fairfax. He resides at present in Suter County, California. His Christian names are George William.

The gentleman who bore the title at the commencement of the present century, was a zealous member of the republican (now called democratic) party.

The Fairfax family, at one time, owned all that portion of Virginia called the Northern Neck, lying between the Potomac and Rappahannock rivers.

So much for the _third_ Query. I beg leave to add a few remarks suggested by the _fifth_.

The _citizens_ of the United States are not called _subjects_ of the United States, and for the same reason that your excellent Queen is not called a subject of Great Britain. Native citizens take no oath of citizenship, expressly or _impliedly_, whatever the latter word may mean. Foreigners, who become naturalised, do not renounce allegiance to the sovereign of Great Britain more "pointedly" than to any other sovereign. Every one renounces his allegiance to the potentate or power under whose sway he was born: the Englishman to the King (or Queen) of Great Britain, the Chinese to the Emperor of China, the Swiss to the republic of Switzerland, and so of others.

W. H. M. says that the existence of the peers of Scotland "is denial of the first proposition in the constitution of" the United States. If W. H. M. will turn to this constitution, he will find that he has confounded the Declaration of Independence with it.

Foreigners, on becoming naturalised, have to renounce their titles of nobility; but I know of nothing to prevent a native American citizen from being called Lord, as well as Mr. or Esq. As above mentioned, a Lord Fairfax was so called twenty-six years after our Independence; and Lord Stirling, who was a Major-General in the American army of the Revolution, was always so styled by his cotemporaries, and addressed by them as "My Lord" and "Your Lordship."

Some farther information upon this subject has been promised to me.

UNEDA.

Philadelphia.

If W. H. M. desires particular information concerning the Fairfax family in Virginia, it will give {380} me pleasure to send him Notes from Sparks' _Washington, Virginia, its History and Antiquities, &c._; amongst which is a picture of "Greenway Court Manor House." I now give only an extract from Washington to Sir John Sinclair (Sparks, vol. xii. pp. 327, 328.), which answers in part W. H. M.'s third Query:

"Within full view of Mount Vernon, separated therefrom by water only, is one of the most beautiful seats on the river for sale, but of greater magnitude than you seem to have contemplated. It is called Belvoir, and belonged to George Wm Fairfax; who, were he now living, would be Baron of Cameron, as his younger brother in this country (George Wm. dying without issue) at present is, though he does not take upon himself the title. This seat was the residence of the above-named gentleman before he went to England ... At present it belongs to Thomas Fairfax, son of Bryan Fairfax: the gentleman who will not, as I said before, take upon himself the title of Baron of Cameron."

T. BALCH.

Philadelphia.

I cannot but deem your correspondents W. W. and H. G. in error when they consider that the name of Baron Fairfax ought not to be retained in the Peerage. The able heraldic editors of the Peerages are likely to be better versed in such matters than to have perpetrated and perpetuated so frequently the blunder; or what is to be said of Sir Bernard Burke's elevation to be a king of arms? Not to omit the instance of the Earl of Athlone, who, though a natural-born subject of a foreign realm, in 1795 took his seat in the House of Lords in Ireland (a case which H. G. wants explained), we have a more recent instance in the case of the present King of Hanover, a foreign potentate, who is Duke of Cumberland and Teviotdale by inheritance, in our peerage, and whose coronation oath (of allegiance?) must be quite incompatible with the condition of a _subject_ in another state. I confess I should like to see this explained, as well as the position of those (amongst whom, however, Lord Fairfax now ranks) who, while strictly mere subjects and citizens of their own state, may have had conferred upon themselves, or inherit, titles of dignity and privilege in a foreign one. We usually (as in the case of the Rothschilds, &c.) acknowledge their highest title in address, but without any adjective or epithets to qualify with honor, such as "honorable;" as is the case, too, with doctors of foreign universities, whose title from courtesy we also admit, though this does not place them on a footing with those of England. The present Duke of Wellington and the Earl Nelson inherit, I believe, titles of dignity in foreign lands, though natural-born subjects of this realm; and there can hardly be a doubt that Lord Fairfax inherits correctly his British barony, though, whenever he may exercise for the first time a _legal_ vote, he may have to exhibit proof of his being the very heir and person qualified, merely because born and resident in a foreign state; the same as would in such case doubtless occur with regard to the other noble persons I have referred to.

A FAIRFAX KINSMAN.

Nantcribba Hall, N.W.

The followings entry in T. Kerslake's catalogue, _The Bristol Bibliographer_, seems worth notice:

"Burrough's (Jer.) Gospel Remission. True blessedness consists in pardon of sin, 1668, 4to., with autograph of Thos. Lord Fairfax, 1668, and several MS.[2] notes by him, 12s. 6d."

E. M.

Hastings.

[Footnote 2: One note may be thought to be characteristic. In the table occurs, "Many think their sins are pardoned, because it is but little they are guilty of." The general has interlined, "A pistol kills as well as a cannon."]

* * * * *

"CONSILIUM DELECTORUM CARDINALIUM."

(Vol. ix., pp. 127. 252.)

I have before me a copy of this very interesting document, together with an _Epistole Joannis Sturmii de eadem re, ad Cardinales caeterosque viros ad eam Consultationem delectos_, printed at Strasburg ("ex officina Cratonis Mylii Argentoraten.") A.D. 1538. The report of the Committee had reached Sturmius in the month of March, 1537-8; and his critique, addressed especially to Contarini, bears the date "tertio Non. Aprilis." As it is a somewhat scarce pamphlet, two or three extracts may not be unacceptable to the readers of "N. & Q."

"Rara res est et praeter omnium opinionem oblata occasio, pontificem datum orbi talem, qui jurejurando fidem suorum sibi ad patefaciendam veritatem astrinxerit, ut si quid secus statuatis quam religio desideret vobis ea culpa non pontifici praestanda videatur."--C. 2.

"At si diligenter et cum fide agatis, vestra virtute, florentem Christi rempublicam conspiciamus; si negligenter et cupide, ut cujus rei adhuc reliquiae nonnullae supersunt, illae continuo ita tollantur, simul ac calumniari ac male agere ceperitis, ut ne vestigia quidem ullius sanctitatis apud vestras quidem partes posteris nostris appareant."--C. 4.

He then passes to other topics, where he has to deplore the little sympathy evinced by the Cardinals for Luther and his party, _e.g._ on the subject of indulgences:

"Quid de illa ratione quam poenitentibus praescribitis, nonne falsa, nonne perversa, nonne ad quaestum magis et ad tyrannidem quam ad vitae emendationem, {381} et correctionem spectans? Et qui remedia contra hos morbos quaerunt, eos vos ea ecclesia ejiciendos putatis, et condemnatis haereseos, qui restituere pristinam puritatem religioni conantur; eos illam tollere, qui ceremonias purgare, eos perflegare qui auctoritatem ecclesiasticam recuperare atque confirmare, eos imminuere et labefactare clamatis."--D. 4.

CHARLES HARDWICK.

Had MR. WOODWARD'S remarks come sooner under notice, they should have received, as well deserving, a quicker reply. It is in one sense rather annoying that he should have mistaken so widely the publication under question, and spent so much time in confirming what few, if any, now doubt, of the Papal origin of the _Consilium Delectorum Cardinalium_. (See Gibbings' Preface to his _Reprint of the Roman Index Expurgatorius_, p. xx.) The title of the tract (so to speak) commonly attributed to the same quarter, but the justice of which is questioned, is, _Consilium quorundam Episcoporum Bononiae congregatorum, quod de ratione stabiliendae Romanae Ecclesiae_ Julio III. P.M. _datum est_. _This_ is the _Consilium_ to which MR. WOODWARD's attention should have been confined; and which he will find in the same volume of Brown's _Fasciculus_, to which he has referred me on the real _Consilium_, pp. 644-650. It appears in English also, translated by Dr. Clagett, in Bishop Gibson's _Preservative_, vol. i. p. 170. edit. 8vo.; and is also included (a point to be noticed) in the single volume published of Vergerio's _Works_, Tubingen, 1563.[3]

MR. WOODWARD has no doubt frequently met, in Protestant authors, with the quotation from this supposed Bologna Council (_Consilium_ being taken for _Concilium_), recommending that as little as possible of the Scriptures should be suffered to come abroad among the vulgar, that having proved the grand source of the present calamities. Now the very air of this passage, and of course of many others rather less disguised, is of itself sufficient to prove that this Bologna Council is a piece of banter; the workmanship, in fact, of Peter Paul Vergerio. Would any _real_ adherent of Rome so express himself? "N.& Q." (Vol. ix., p. 111.) supplies a ready answer, in the communication from F. C. H. on the so-called Catholic Bible Society.

Would a real adherent of the Papal Church again express himself in the following _unimpassioned_ manner?

"Nam Apostolorum temporibus (ut verum tibi fateamur, sed silentio opus est) vel aliquot annis post ipsos Apostolos, nulla vel Papatus, vel Cardinalatus mentio erat, nec amplissimos illos reditus Episcopatuum et Sacerdotiorum fuisse constat, nec templa tantis sumptibus extruebantur, &c.: aestimet ergo tua sanctitas quam male nobiscum ageretur, si nostro aliquo fato in pristinam paupertatem humilitatem et miseram illam servitutem ac potestatem alienam redigendi essemus!"

Again:

"Deinde ubi Episcopi Sacerdotum palmas tantum inungunt, jube illos internam atque externam manum, ad haec caput ipsum et simul totam faciem perungere. Nam si tantulum illud oleum sanctificandi vim habet, major certe olei quantitas majorem quoque sanctificandi vim obtinebit."

To be sure! Who can doubt it?

MR. WOODWARD will, I apprehend, readily agree that these sentences come from no one connected with the Roman Church. And they are quoted in the hope that Protestants will cease to cite this supposed Bologna Council as any valid or genuine testimony to Romish proceedings and sentiments.

NOVUS.

[Footnote 3: See an account of him in McCrie's _Hist. of the Reformation in Italy_, pp. 77. 115. &c.]

* * * * *

PHOTOGRAPHIC CORRESPONDENCE.

_Mounting Positives._--If the print and the mounting paper, or Bristol board, are _both_ made equally damp, and the back of the picture covered with thin paste, they adhere without any unevenness; and if the print is on the fine Canson's paper, the appearance is that of an India proof. They should remain until _perfectly dry_ in a press.

H. W. DIAMOND.

_Mounting of Photographs, and Difficulties in the Wax-paper Process._--May I request a little additional information from your correspondent SELEUCUS, Vol. ix., p. 310., respecting the mounting of photographs? Does he mean merely the painting the edges, or the smearing of the photograph all over its back with the Indian-rubber glue, prior to sticking the proof on the cardboard? If the former, which I apprehend he does, SELEUCUS will necessarily have the unsightly appearance of the picture's buckling up in the middle on the board being bent forward and backward in different directions? May I take the liberty of asking him in what respect the plan proposed is superior to that of painting over the edges with mucilage of gum arabic, containing a little brown sugar to prevent its cracking, allowing it to dry, and prior to the placing it on the card, slightly moistening it; a plan superior to that of putting it on the board at first, as all risk of a portion of the gum oozing out at the edges is thereby avoided.