Kitabı oku: «Notes and Queries, Number 186, May 21, 1853», sayfa 4
PHOTOGRAPHIC CORRESPONDENCE
Stereoscopic Queries.—Can any of your readers inform me what are the proper angles under which stereoscopic pictures should be taken?
Mr. Beard, I am informed, takes his stereoscopic portraits at about 6½°, or 1 in 9; that is to say, his cameras are placed 1 inch apart for every 9 inches the sitter is removed from them. The distance of the sitter with him is generally, I believe, 8 feet, which would give 10⅔ inches for the extent of the separation between his cameras. More than this has the effect, he says, of making the pictures appear to stand out unnaturally; that is to say, if the cameras were to be placed 12 inches apart (which would be equal to 1 in 8), the pictures would seem to be in greater relief than the objects.
I find that the pictures on a French stereoscopic slide I have by me have been taken at an angle of 10°, or 1 in 6. This was evidently photographed at a considerable distance, the triumphal arch in the Place de Carousel (of which it is a representation) being reduced to about 1¼ inch in height. How comes it then that the angle is here increased to 10° from 6½°, or to 1 in 6 from 1 in 9.
Moreover, the only work I have been able to obtain on the mode of taking stereoscopic pictures, lays it down that all portraits, or near objects, should be taken under an angle of 15°, or, as it says, 1 in 5; that is, if the camera is 20 feet from the sitter, the distance between its first and second position (supposing only one to be used) should not exceed 4 feet: otherwise, adds the author, "the stereosity will appear unnaturally great."
When two cameras are employed, the instructions proceed to state that the distance between them would be about 1/10th of the distance from the part of the object focussed. The example given is a group of portraits, and the angle, 1 in 10, is afterwards spoken of as being equivalent to an arc of 10°.
Farther on, we are told that "the angle should be lessened as the distance between the nearest and farthest objects increase. Example: if the farthest object be twice as far from the camera as the near object, the angle should be 5° to a central point between these two.
Now, I find by calculation that the measurements and the angle here mentioned by no means agree. For instance, an angle of 15° is spoken of as being equivalent to the measurement 1 in 5. An angle of 10° is said, or implied, to be the same as 1 in 10. This is far from being the fact. According to my calculations, the following are the real equivalents:—
Will any of your readers oblige me by solving the above anomalies, and by giving the proper angles or measurement under which objects should be taken when near, moderately distant, or far removed from the camera; stating, at the same time, at how many feet from the camera an object is to be considered as near, or distant, or between the two? It would be a great assistance to beginners in the stereoscopic art, if some experienced gentleman would state the best distances and angles for taking busts, portraits, groups, buildings, and landscapes.
It is said that stereoscopic pictures at great distances, such as views, should be taken "with a small aperture." But as the exact dimensions are not mentioned, it would be equally serviceable if, to the other details, were added some account of the dimensions of the apertures required for the several angles.
In the directions given in the work from which I have quoted, it is said that when pictures are taken with one camera placed in different positions, the angle should be 15°; but when taken with two cameras, the angle should be 10°. Is this right? And, if so, why the difference?
In the account given by you of Mr. Wilkinson's ingenious mode of levelling the cameras for stereoscopic pictures, it is said the plumb-line should be three feet long, and that the diagonal lines drawn on the ground glass should be made to cut the principal object focussed on the glass; and "when you have moved it, the camera, 8 or 10 feet, make it cut the same object again." At what distance is the object presumed to be?
Any information upon the above matters will be a great service, and consequently no slight favour conferred upon your constant reader since the photographic correspondence has been commenced.
φ.
Photographic Portraits of Criminals, &c.—Such experience as I have had both in drawing portraits and taking photographs, impels me to hint to the authorities of Scotland Yard that they will by no means find taking the portraits of gentlemen that are "wanted" infallible, and I anticipate some unpleasant mistakes will ere long arise. I have observed that inability to recognize a portrait is as frequent in the case of photographs as on canvass, or in any other way. I defy the whole world of artists to reduce the why and wherefore into a reasonable shape; one will declare that "either" looks as if the individual was going to cry; the next critic will say he sees nothing but a pleasant smile. "I should never have known who it is if you hadn't told me," says a third; the next says "it's his eyes, but not his nose;" and perhaps the next will say, "it's his nose, but not his eyes."
I was present not long since at the showing a portrait, which I think about the climax of doubt. "Not a bit like," was the first exclamation. The poor artist sank into his chair; after, however, a brief contemplation, "It's very like, in-deed; it's excellent:" this was said by a gentleman of the highest attainments, and one of the best poets of the day.
Some persons (I beg pardon of the ladies) take the habiliments as the standard of recognition. I do not accuse them of doing it wilfully; they do not know it themselves. For example, Miss Smith will know Miss Jones a mile or so off. By her general air, or her face? Oh no! It's by the bonnet she helped her to choose at Madame What-d'ye-call's, because the colour suited he complexion.
These are some of the mortifications attendant on artistic labour, and if they occur with the educated classes, they are more likely to happen even to "intelligent policemen," as the newspaper have it. If I dissent from the plan it is because I doubt its efficiency, but do not deny that it is worth a trial. If the French like to carry their portraits about with them on their passports to show to policemen, let them submit to the humiliation. I doubt very much whether the Chamber of Deputies would have made a law of it: it appears a new idea in jurisprudence that a man must sit for his picture. Any one, however, understanding the camera, would be alive before the removal of the cup of the lens, and be ready with a wry face; I do not suppose he could be imprisoned for that.
Both plans are miserable travesties on the lovely uses of portrait painting and photography. Side by side with Cowper's passionate address to his mother's picture, how does it look?
"Oh, that those lips had language! Life has pass'd
With me but roughly since I saw thee last."
And,
"Blest be the art that can immortalise."
If photography has an advantage over canvas, it does indeed immortalise (the painting may imitate, and the portrait may be good; but there is something more profoundly affecting in having the actual, the real shade of a friend perhaps long since in his grave); and we ought not only to be grateful to the illustrious inventors of the art, but prevent these base uses being made of it.
In short, apart from the uncertainty of recognition, which I have not in the least caricatured, if Giles Scroggins, housebreaker and coiner, and all the swell mob, are to be photographed, it will bring the art into disgrace, and people's friends will inquire delicately where it was done, when they show their lively effigies. It may also mislead by a sharp rogue's adroitness; and I question very much its legality.
Weld Taylor.
Photography applied to Catalogues of Books.—May not photography be usefully applied to the making of catalogues of large libraries? It would seem no difficult matter to obtain any number of photographs, of any required size, of the title-page of any book. Suppose the plan adopted, that five photographs of each were taken; they may be arranged in five catalogues, as follows:—Era, subject, country, author, title. These being arranged alphabetically, would form five catalogues of a library probably sufficient to meet the wants of all. Any number of additional divisions may be added. By adopting a fixed breadth—say three inches—for the photographs, to be pasted in double columns in folio, interchanges may take place of those unerring slips, and thus librarians aid each other. I throw out this crude idea, in the hope that photographers and librarians may combine to carry it out.
Albert Blor, LL.D.
Dublin.
Application of Photography to the Microscope.—May I request the re-insertion of the photographic Query of R. J. F. in Vol. vi., p. 612., as I cannot find that it has received an answer, viz., What extra apparatus is required to a first-rate microscope in order to obtain photographic microscopic pictures?
J.
Replies to Minor Queries
Discovery at Nuneham Regis (Vol. vi., p. 558.).—May the decapitated body, found in juxta-position with other members of the Chichester family, not be that of Sir John Chichester the Younger, mentioned in Burke's Peerage and Baronetage, under the head "Chichester, Sir Arthur, of Raleigh, co. Devon," as being that fourth son of Sir John Chichester, Knt., M.P. for the co. Devon, who was Governor of Carrickfergus, and lost his life "by decapitation," after falling into the hands of James Macsorley Macdonnel, Earl of Antrim?
The removal of the body from Ireland to the resting-place of other members of the family would not be a very improbable event, and quite consistent with the natural affection of relatives, under such mournful circumstances.
J. H. T.
Eulenspiegel, or Howleglas (Vol. vii., pp. 357. 416.).—Permit me to acquaint your correspondent that among the many singular and curious books which formed the library of that talented antiquary the late Charles Kirkpatrick Sharp, and which were sold here by auction some time ago, there was a small 12mo. volume containing French translations, with rude woodcuts, of—
1. "La Vie joyeuse et recreative de Tiel-Ullespiegle, de ses Faits merveilleux et Fortunes qu'il a eues; lequel par aucune Ruse ne se laissa pas tromper. A Troyes, chez Garner, 1838."
2. "Histoire de Richard Sans Peur, Duc de Normandie, Fils de Robert le Diable, &c. A Troyes, chez Oudot, 1745."
T. G. S.
Edinburgh.
Parochial Libraries (Vol. vi., p. 432.; Vol. vii., pp. 193. 369. 438.).—
"In the year 1635, upon the request of the Rev. Anthony Tuckney, Vicar of Boston, it was ordained by the Archbishop of Canterbury (Laud), then on his metropolitical visitation at Boston, 'that the roome over the porch of the saide churche shall be repaired and decently fitted up to make a librarye, to the end that, in case any well and charitably disposed person shall hereafter bestow any books to the use of the parish, they may be there safely preserved and kept.'"
This library at present contains several hundred volumes of ancient (patristic, scholastic, and post-Reformation) divinity.
I hope to be able ere long to make a correct catalogue of the books at present remaining, and at the same time make an attempt to restore them to that decent "keeping" in which the great and good archbishop desired they might remain.
Query: In making preparations for the catalogue, I have been informed by a gentleman that he remembers two or more cart loads of books from this library being sold by the churchwardens, and, as he believes, by the then archdeacon's orders, at waste paper price; that the bulk of them was purchased by a bookseller then resident in Boston, and re-sold by him to a clergyman in the neighbourhood of Silsby.
1. What was the date of the sale?
2. The name of the Venerable Archdeacon who perpetrated this robbery?
3. Whether there are any legal means for recovering the missing works?
My extracts are from Thompson's History of Boston, a correspondent of yours, a new edition of whose laborious work is about to appear.
Thomas Collis.
Boston.
Painter—Derrick (Vol. vii., pp. 178. 391.).—I cannot agree with J. S. C. that painter is a corruption of punter, from the Saxon punt, a boat. According to the construction and analogy of our language, a punter or boater would be the person who worked or managed the boat. I consider that painter—like halter and tether, derived from Gothic words signifying to hold and to tie—is a corruption of bynder, from the Saxon bynd, to bind. If the Anglo-Norman word panter, a snare for catching and holding birds, be a corruption of bynder, we are brought to the word at once. Or, indeed, we may go no farther back than panter.
J. C. G. says that derrick is an ancient British word: perhaps he will be kind enough to let us know its signification. I always understood that a derrick took its name from Derrick, the notorious executioner at Tyburn, in the early part of the seventeenth century, whose name was long a general term for hangman. In merchant ships, the derrick, for hoisting up goods, is always placed at the hatchway, close by the gallows. The derrick, however, is not a nautical appliance alone; it has been long used to raise stones at buildings; but the crane, and that excellent invention the handy-paddy, has now almost put it out of employment. What will philologists, two or three centuries hence, make out of the word handy-paddy, which is universally used by workmen to designate the powerful winch, traversing on temporary rails, employed to raise heavy weights at large buildings. For the benefit of posterity, I may say that it is very handy for the masons, and almost invariably worked by Irishmen.
As a collateral evidence to my opinion, that painter is derived from the Saxon bynder, through the Anglo-Norman panter, and that derrick is from Derrick the hangman, I may add that these words are unknown in the nautical technology of any other language.
W. Pinkerton.
Ham.
Pepys's "Morena" (Vol. vii., p. 118.).—Mr. Warden may like to be informed that his conjecture about the meaning of this word is fully confirmed by the following passage in the Diary, 6th October, 1661, which has hitherto unaccountably escaped observation:
"There was also my pretty black girl, Mrs. Dekins and Mrs. Margaret Pen this day come to church."
Braybrooke.
Pylades and Corinna (Vol. vii., p. 305.).—If your correspondent's question have reference to the two volumes in octavo published under this title in 1731, assuredly Defoe had nothing to do with them, as must be evident to any one on the most cursory glance. The volumes contain memoirs of Mrs. Elizabeth Thomas, on whom Dryden conferred the poetical title of Corinna, and the letters which passed between her and Richard Gwinnett, her intended husband. A biography of this lady, neither whose life nor poetry were of the best, may be found in Chalmers's Biog. Dict., vol. xxix. p. 281., and a farther one in Cibber's Lives, vol. iv. The Dunciad, and her part in the publication of Pope's early correspondence, have given her an unhappy notoriety. I must say, however, that, notwithstanding his provocation, I cannot but think that he treated this poor woman ungenerously.
James Crossley.
Judge Smith (Vol. vii., p. 463.).—I must confess my ignorance of any Judge Smith flourishing in the reign of Elizabeth. I know of only three judges of that name.
1. John Smith, a Baron of the Exchequer during the last seven years of the reign of Henry VIII. From him descended the Lords Carrington of Wotton Waven, in Warwickshire, a title which became extinct in 1705.
2. John Smith, who was also a Baron of the Exchequer in the reign of Anne. He became Chief Baron of the Exchequer in Scotland in 1708, and died in 1726. He endowed a hospital for poor widows at Frolesworth in Leicestershire.
3. Sidney Stafford Smythe, likewise a Baron of the Exchequer under George II. and III., and Chief Baron in the latter reign. He was of the same family as that of the present Viscount Strangford.
If Z. E. R. would be good enough to send a copy of the inscription on the monument in Chesterfield Church, and give some particulars of the family seated at Winston Hall, the difficulty will probably be removed.
Edward Foss.
Grindle (Vol. vii., pp. 107. 307. 384.).—As one at least of the readers of "N. & Q." living near Grindle (Greendale is modern), allow me to say that from the little I know of the places, they appear to me "to possess no traces of those natural features which would justify the demoniacal derivation proposed by I. E." However, as my judgment may be of little worth, if "I. E. of Oxford" should ever migrate into these parts, and will favour me with a call, with credentials of being the veritable I. E. of "N. & Q.," I shall have much pleasure in assisting him to examine for himself all the local knowledge which a short walk to the spots may enable him to acquire.
H. T. Ellacombe.
Rectory, Clyst St. George.
Simile of the Soul and the Magnetic Needle (Vol. vi., pp. 127. 207. 280. 368. 566.).—Dr. Arnold, with more religion than science, thus employs this simile:
"Men get embarrassed by the common cases of misguided conscience; but a compass may be out of order as well as a conscience, and the needle may point due south if you hold a powerful magnet in that direction. Still the compass, generally speaking, is a true and sure guide, and so is the conscience; and you can trace the deranging influence on the latter quite as surely as on the former."—Life and Correspondence, 2nd ed. p. 390.
C. Mansfield Ingleby.
Birmingham.
English Bishops deprived by Queen Elizabeth, 1559 (Vol. vii., p. 260.).—I have endeavoured to procure some information for A. S. A. on those points which Mr. Dredge left unnoticed, but find that, after his diligent search, very little indeed is to be gleaned. Bishop Payne died in January, 1559/60 (Strype's Annals, anno 1559). Dod, in vol. i. p. 507. of his Church History, mentions a letter of Bishop Goldwell's, or, as he calls him, Godwell's, to Dr. Allen, dated anno 1581:
"This letter," he says, "seems to be written not long before Bishop Godwell's death, for I meet with no farther mention of him. Here the reader may take notice of a mistake in Dr. Heylin, who tells us he died prisoner in Wisbich Castle, which is to be understood of Bishop Watson."
Of Bishop Pate he says:
"He was alive in 1562, but how long after I do not find."—Vol. i. p. 488.
Bishop Pole, according to the same authority, died a prisoner at large about the latter end of May, 1568. Bishop Frampton died May 25, 1708 (Calamy's Own Times, vol. ii. p. 119.). I cannot ascertain the day of Bishop White's death, but he was buried, according to Evelyn (vol. iii. p. 364.), June 5, 1698.
Tyro.
Dublin.
Borrowed Thoughts (Vol. vii., p. 203.).—The thought which Erica shows has been used by Butler and Macaulay is a grain from an often-pillaged granary; a tag of yarn from a piece of cloth used ever since its make for darning and patching; a drop of honey from a hive round which robber-bees and predatory wasps have never ceased to wander,—the Anatomy of Melancholy:
"Though there were giants of old in physic and philosophy, yet I say with Didacus Stella3, 'a dwarf standing on the shoulders of a giant may see farther than a giant himself.' I may likely add, alter, and see farther than my predecessors; and it is no greater prejudice for me to indite after others, than for Ælianus Montaltus, that famous physician, to write De Morbis Capitis, after Jason Pratensis," &c.
The pagination (that of Tegg's edition, 1849) will not guide those who with Elia sicken at the profanity of "unearthing the bones of that fantastic old great man," and know not a "sight more heartless" than the reprint of his Opus.
Sigma.
Sunderland.
Dr. South v. Goldsmith, Talleyrand, &c. (Vol. vi., p. 575. Vol. vii., p. 311.).—One authority has been overlooked by Mr. Breen, which seems as likely as any to have given currency to the saying, viz. Dean Swift. In Gulliver's Travels (1727), Voyage to the Houyhnhnms, the hero gives the king some information respecting British ministers of state, which I apprehend in Swift's day was no exaggeration. The minister, Gulliver says, "applies his words to all uses except to the indication of his mind." It must be confessed, however, that this authority is some seven years after Dr. South.
C. Mansfield Ingleby.
Birmingham.
Foucault's Experiment (Vol. vii., p. 330.).—The reality of the rotation, and the cause assigned to it by Foucault in his experiment, is now admitted without question by scientific men. But in measuring the amount of the motion of the pendulum, so many disturbing causes were found to be at work, that the numerical results have not been obtained as yet with exactness. The best account is, perhaps, the original one in the Comptes Rendus. Mr. Foucault has lately invented an instrument founded on a similar principle, to find the latitude of a place.
Elsno.
Passage in "Locksley Hall" (Vol. vi., p. 272.; Vol. vii., pp. 25. 146.).—Of these three commentators neither appears to me to have hit Tennyson's meaning, though Corylus has made the nearest shot. I ought to set out by confessing that it was not originally clear to myself, but that I could not for a monument doubt, when the following explanation was suggested to me by a friend. The "curlews" themselves are the "dreary gleams:" the words are what the Latin Grammar calls "duo substantiva ejusdem rei." I take the meaning, in plain prose to be this: "The curlews are uttering their peculiar cry, as they fly over Locksley Hall, looking like (to me, the spectator) dreary gleams crossing the moorland."
I could supply A. A. D. with several examples in English, from my commonplace-book, of the "bold figure of speech not uncommon in the vivid language of Greece;" and among the rest, one from Tennyson himself, to wit:
"Now, scarce three paces measured from the mound,
We stumbled on a stationary voice," &c.
But I doubt whether the poet had those passages in his thought, when he penned the opening of his noble poem "Locksley Hall." Of course I do not know, any more than A. A. D., and the rest; and I suppose we shall none of us get any enlightenment "by authority."
Harry Leroy Temple.
Lake of Geneva (Vol. vii. p. 406.).—The account given in the Chronicle of Marius of what is called "an earthquake or landslip in the valley of the Upper Rhone," is evidently that of a sudden débâcle destructive of life and property, but not such as to effect any permanent change in the configuration of the country. That an antiquary like Montfaucon should have fallen into the blunder of supposing that the Lacus Lemanus was then formed, may well excite surprise. The breadth of the new-formed lake, as given by Marius, is impossible, as the mountains in the valley are scarcely anywhere more than a mile apart. The valley of the Upper Rhone is liable to such débâcles, and one which would fill it might be called a lake, although of short duration. Having witnessed the effects of the débâcle of 1818 a few weeks after it happened, I can easily understand how such a one as that described by Marius should have produced the effects attributed to it, and yet have left no traces of its action after the lapse of centuries.
