Kitabı oku: «Notes and Queries, Number 65, January 25, 1851», sayfa 4
OUTLINE IN PAINTING
A correspondent (J.O.W.H.) at p. 318. of Vol. i. asks a question on the subject of outline in painting; instancing the works of Albert Durer and Raffaelle as examples of defined, and those of Titian, Murillo, &c., of indefined outline. He wishes to know whether there is "a right and a wrong in the matter, apart from anything which men call taste?"
The subject generally is a curious one, and has interested me for some time; as experiments exhibit several singular phenomena resulting from the interference and diffraction of rays of light in passing by the outline of a material body. As a matter of fact, I believe I may say, that there is no such thing in nature as a perfectly defined outline; since the diffraction of the rays, in passing it, causes them to be projected upon it more or less, according to the nature of the particular body, and the intensity of the light. And I may remark, by the way, that I believe this circumstance of the projection of a star upon the moon's disc at the time of an occultation, is to be accounted for on this principle (though with all due deference to higher authority); a phenomenon which is to this day unexplained.
Of course every outline is rendered less defined by any motion of the eye of the observer, however slight. Hence, perhaps, the comparative indistinctness of outline commonly seen in pictures, compared with those in nature; as the artist would be apt to take advantage of this circumstance, and give to his painting the same kind of effect the reality would have to an eye wandering over it; thereby taking away the attention from individual parts, and, as it were, forcing it to judge of the general effect, which general effect is, perhaps, the main object in painting.
Hence it follows that wherever, in any design, separate portions are intended to arrest attention, the outline should be more defined and, accordingly, we may remark that Albert Durer, and others like him, who were very careful of minutiæ, are also distinct and hard in their outlines, which is also the case, for the most part, in the Dutch school, and in architectural paintings, fruit-pieces, &c.; and we find that in proportion as the artist discards the comparatively unworthy minute accompaniments of his subject, and aims at unity of effect, so does he neglect sharpness of outline. Which is the correct practice—distinctness, or indistinctness of outline—will be differently judged by those who hold different opinions on painting in general. While one person will maintain that a picture, to be perfect, must be an exact copy of nature, in short an artistic daguerreotype; another will hold almost the contrary; so that the subject of outline must be matter of opinion still. However, the lover of general effect has this rational ground of argument on his side, viz., there is no such thing as a strictly defined outline in nature, even to an eye at rest; while to one in motion, which is perhaps the normal state, that outline is rendered still more indistinct.
H.C.K.
—– Rectory, Hereford, Dec. 28. 1850.
TEN CHILDREN AT A BIRTH
(Vol. ii., p. 459.)
The curiosity excited by the perusal of my previous communication under the foregoing head, and the interesting editorial note appended in "NOTES AND QUERIES," induce me to continue the attempt to verify one of the most remarkable instances of abnormal fecundity in an individual of the human species recorded in modern times. The reader must judge of the following "circumstantial evidence:"—
1. I have just seen widow Platts (formerly Sarah Birch), a poor, fat, decent woman, who keeps a small greengrocer's shop, in West Bar, Sheffield. She says she was born in Spring Street in the same town, on the 29th Sept. 1781; well remembers wondering why she was so much looked at when a girl: and her surprise, when afterwards told by her mother, that she was one of ten children born at the same time. Had often been told that she was so small at birth, that she was readily put into a quart measure; and for some time, lay in a basket before the fire "wrapped in a flannel like a newly hatched chicken."
2. The improbability of finding any living gossip who was present at the birth, must be obvious: but I have conversed with old women who had heard their mothers describe the occurrence from personal knowledge.
3. One ancient dame had no more doubt of the fact than the cause of it. Having apparently heard and believed a monstrous tradition of a multitudinous gestation extant in common "folklore." "It was," said she, with all gravity, "the effect of a wish," intended to spite the father; who, having had two children by his wife, and an interval of nine years elapsing before the portentous pregnancy in question, did not desire, it seems, any further increase to his family.
4. The parents died, the daughter married, and the "story of her birth" was forgotten: until the publication of White's Sheffield Directory in 1833, when, among other local memorabilia, the strange announcement of "ten children at birth," was reproduced on the contemporary authority of the Leeds Mercury. From that time Mrs. Platts has been more or less an object of curiosity.
5. The Directory paragraph is as follows:—
"An instance of extraordinary fecundity is recorded in the Leeds Mercury of 1781, which says that Ann [Sarah] Birch, of Sheffield, was, in that year, delivered of ten children!!! We, in our time, have heard of Sheffield ladies having three children at birth; but we know no other case, but that of the aforesaid Mrs. Birch, which countenances the fructiferous fame which they have obtained in some circles."
I have been unsuccessful in an effort to collate the foregoing with the original newspaper paragraph: but Mr. White, while he personally assured me of the veracity of the transcript, also pointed out to me an earlier version of the same fact from the same source in the Annals of the Clothing Districts, published about thirty years since.
6. In conformity with the suggestion (NOTES AND QUERIES, Vol. ii., p. 459), I have examined the Parish Register of Baptisms, but the entry is as curt and formal as possible, viz.:—
"Sarah, Dr. of Thos. and Sarah Birch, Cutler,"
under the date, Dec. 12.1781.
Taking all the foregoing circumstances into account, there seems to me little ground for the erection of any strong objection to the alleged fact—extraordinary as it is—of ten children having been brought forth at one time; or, to the hardly less interesting coincidence, that one of them is still living. I cannot but add, that if the contemporary notice of this extraordinary birth in the Leeds Mercury of 1781 should not be admitted as good evidence for the fact, it does, at least, negative the presumptive value of any objection derived from the silence of the writer in the Philosophical Transactions six years afterwards; strange as such silence assuredly appears. After all, the question occurs: What has become of the bodies said to have been preserved? As all parties concur in naming "old Mr. Staniforth" as the accoucheur in attendance on Mrs. Birch; and as that gentleman has been dead many years, I called upon his eldest surviving pupil, Mr. Nicholson, surgeon, to ask him whether, in conversation, or among the preparations in the surgery of his worthy master, he had ever met with any illustration of the parturition in question? He replied that he had not. It may not, perhaps, be out of place here to mention that the above-named Mr. Nicholson, surgeon, himself delivered a poor woman of five children, on the 10th of February, 1829, at Handsworth Woodhouse, near Sheffield. This case was even more remarkable than that which gave occasion to the paper which was read before the Royal Society in 1787, inasmuch as not only were four of the children born alive, but three of them lived to be baptized.
N.D.
Sheffield, Jan. 13. 1851.
SHAKSPEARE'S USE OF "CAPTIOUS."
(Vol. ii., p. 354.)
In All's Well that Ends Well, Act I. Sc. 3., Helena says to the Countess, speaking of her love for Bertram,—
"I know I love in vain; strive against hope;
Yet, in this captious and intenible sieve,
I still pour in the waters of my love,
And lack not to lose still."
It is not without hesitation that I venture to oppose MR. SINGER on a point on which he is so well entitled to give an opinion. But I cannot help thinking that MR. SINGER'S explanation, besides being somewhat too refined and recondite, is less applicable to the general sense and drift of the passage than that of Steevens, which Malone and Mr. Collier have adopted.
What I think wanting to Steevens' interpretation, is an increase, if I may so express myself, of intensity. He takes the word, I conceive, in its right bearing, but does not give it all the requisite force. I should suggest that it means not merely "recipient, capable of receiving," but, to coin a word, captatious, eager or greedy to receive, absorbing; as we say avidum mare, or a greedy gulf. The Latin analogous to it in this sense would be, not capax, or MR. SINGER'S captiosus, but captax, or captabundus; neither of which words, however, occurs.
The sense of the word, like that of many others in the same author, must be determined by the scope and object of the passage in which it is used. The object of Helena, in declaring her love to the Countess, is to show the all-absorbing nature of it; to prove that she is tota in illo; and that, however she may strive to stop the cravings of it, her endeavours are of no more use than the attempt to fill up a bottomless abyss.
The reader may, if he pleases, compare her case with that of other heroines in like predicaments. Thus Medæa, in Apollonius Rhodius:
"Παντη μοι φρενες εισιν αμηχανοι, ουδε τις αλκη Πηματος."
And the same lady in Ovid:
"– Luctata diu, postquam ratione furorem,
Vincere non poterat. Frustra, Medea, repugnas.
–
Excute virgineo conceptas pectore flammas,
Si potes, infelix. Si possem sanior essem:
Sed trahit invitam nova vis."
Or Dido, in Virgil or Ovid:
"Ille quidem malè gratus, et ad munera surdus;
Et quo si non sim stulta carere velim:
Non tamen Æneam, quamvis male cogitat, odi;
Sed queror infidum, questaque pejus amo."
Or Phædra, in Seneca:
–"Furor cogit sequi
Pejora: vadit animus in præceps sciens,
Remeatque, frustra sana consilia appetens.
Sic cum gravatam navita adversâ ratem
Propellit undâ, cedit in vanum labor,
Et victa prono puppis aufertur vado."
The complaints of all are alike; they lament that they make attempts to resist their passion, but find it not to be resisted; that they are obliged at last to yield themselves entirely to it, and to feel their whole thoughts, as it were, swallowed up by it.
Such being the way in which Shakspeare represents Helena, and such the sentiments which he puts into her mouth, it seems evident that the interpretation of captious in the sense of absorbent is better adapted to the passage than the explanation of it in the sense of fallacious.
"I know I love in vain, and strive against hope; yet into this insatiable and unretaining sieve I still pour in the waters of my love, and fail not to lose still."
I said that the sense of fallacious seemed to be too refined and recondite. To believe that Shakspeare borrowed his captious in this sense, from the Latin captiosus, we must suppose that he was well acquainted with the exact sense of the Latin word; a supposition which, in regard to a man who had small Latin, we can scarcely be justified in entertaining. This interpretation is, therefore, too recondite: and to imagine Helena as applying the word to Bertram as being "incapable of receiving her love," and "truly captious" (or deceitful and ensnaring) "in that respect," is surely to indulge in too much refinement of exposition.
That Shakspeare had in his mind, as MR. SINGER suggests, the punishment of the Danaides, is extremely probable; but this only makes the explanation of captious in the sense of absorbent more applicable to the passage, with which that of Seneca, quoted above, may be aptly compared.
I am sorry that Johnson was so unfortunate as to propose carious as an emendation; but even in doing this, he had, according to my notion of the lines, the right sense in view, viz., that of letting through or swallowing up, like a rotten tub or a quicksand.
I hope that MR. SINGER will take these remarks in good part, as being offered, not from a wish to oppose his opinion, but from a conviction that the interpretation now given is right, and from a desire that to every word in Shakspeare should be assigned its true signification.
J.S.W.
Stockwell.
SWORD OF WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR
(Vol. iii., p. 24.)
There can be little doubt that the sword respecting which P. inquires is in the armoury at Goodrich Court. It was presented by Lord Viscount Gage to the late Sir Samuel Meyrick, and exhibited by Dr. Meyrick to the Society of Antiquaries, Nov. 23. 1826. The Doctor's letter is to be found in the Appendix to the Archæologia of that date, with an engraving of the sword. He states that the arms on the pommel are those of Battle Abbey, that its date is about A.D. 1430, and that it was the symbol of the criminal jurisdiction of the abbot. At the dissolution of the abbey it fell into the hands of Sir John Gage, who was one of the commissioners for taking the surrender of religious houses.
Its entire length is 3 feet 5 inches, and the breadth of the blade at the guard 2 inches. The Doctor considers it to be "the oldest perfect sword in England." The arms are a cross, with a crown in the first and last quarters, and a sword in the second and third. There are also the letters T.L., the initials of the Abbot, Thomas de Lodelow, who held that office from 1417 to 1437. This fixes its date in the reign of Henry V., though the fact of the first William having been the founder of Battle Abbey has given colour to the tradition of its having been his property.
W.J. BERNHARD SMITH.
Temple.
I much doubt the fact of the Conqueror's sword ever having been in the possession of the monks of Battle. Nor am I aware of any writer contemporary with the dissolution of that famous abbey who asserts it. William's royal robe, adorned with precious gems, and a feretory in the form of an altar, inclosing 300 relics of the saints, were bequeathed by him to the monastery; and Rufus transmitted them to Battle, where they were duly received on the 8th of the calends of November, 1088. This information is furnished by the Chronicle of Battel Abbey, which I have just translated for the press; but not one word is said of the sword.
Though I have always lived within a few miles of Firle Place, the seat of the Gages, and though I am tolerably well acquainted with the history and traditions of that noble family, I never heard of the sword mentioned by P. Had that relic really been preserved at Battle till the time of Henry VIII., it is not improbable that it might have come into Sir John Gage's hands with the manor of Aleiston, of which he was grantee, while his son-in-law, Sir Anthony Browne, became possessor of the abbey itself.
Will P. have the goodness to mention the source from which he obtained his statement?
MARK ANTONY LOWER.
Lewes.
In reply to the Query respecting the sword of William the Conqueror (Vol. iii., p. 24.), I am enabled to inform you that the sword, and also the coronation robes, of William the Conqueror, were, together with the original "Roll of Battel," kept in the church or chapel of Battel Abbey until it was dismantled at the Reformation; when they were transferred to the part of the abbey which remained, and which became the possession and habitation of Sir Anthony Browne, Master of the Horse to Henry VIII. These precious relics continued in the possession of his descendants, who were created Lords Mountacute; and when Battel Abbey was sold by them to the ancestor of the present owner, they conveyed them to Cowdray Park, Sussex, where they remained until they were destroyed in the lamentable fire which burned down that mansion; and which, by a singular coincidence, took place on the same day that its owner, the last male representative of the Brownes Lords Mountacute, was drowned in a rash attempt to descend the falls of Schaffhausen in a boat.
E.H.Y.
MEANING OF EISELL
(Vol. ii., pp. 241. 286. 315. 329)
After all that has been written on this subject in "NOTES AND QUERIES," from MR. SINGER'S proposition of wormwood in No. 46., to MR. HICKSON'S approval of it in No. 51., the question remains substantially where Steevens and Malone had left it so many years agone.
It is not necessary to discuss whether vinegar, verjuice, or wormwood be the preferable translation of the Shakspearian word; for before either of them can be received, the advocate is bound to accommodate his exposition to Shakspeare's sentence, and to "get over the drink up," which still stands in his way as it did in that of Malone.
MR. SINGER get over the difficulty by simply saying "to drink up was commonly used for simply to drink." The example he quotes, however,—
"I will drink
Potions of eysell,"—
is not to his purpose; it is only an equivalent by the addition of the words "potions of" to give it the same definite character. Omit those words, and the question remains as before.
MR. HICKSON (Vol. ii., p. 329.) has laid down "a canon of criticism for the guidance of commentators in questions of this nature," so appropriate and valuable, that I cannot except to be bound by it in these remarks; and if in the sequel his own argument (and his friend's proposition to boot) shall be blown up by his own petard, it will show the instability of the cause he has espoused.
"Master the grammatical construction of the passage in question (if from a drama, in it dramatic and scenic application), deducing therefrom the general sense, before you attempt to amend or fix the meaning of a doubtful word."
Such is the canon; and Mr. HICKSON proceeds to observe, in language that must meet the approval of every student of the immortal bard, that—
"Of all writers, none exceed Shakspeare in logical correctness and nicety of expression. With a vigour of though and command of language attained by no man besides, it is fair to conclude, that he would not be guilty of faults of construction such as would disgrace a schoolboy's composition."
With this canon so ably laid down, and these remarks so apposite, MR. HICKSON, taking up the weak point which Mr. SINGER had slurred over, observes—
"Drink up is synonymous with drink off, drink to the dregs. A child taking medicine is urged to 'drink it up.'"
Ay, exactly so; drink up what? the medicine; again a defined quantity; dregs and all,—still a definite quantity.
MR. HICKSON proceeds:
"The idea of the passage appears to be that each of the acts should go beyond the last preceding in extravagance.
'Woo't weep? woo't fight? woo't fast? woo't tear thyself?
Woo't drink up eisell?'
and then comes the climax—'eat a crocodile?' Here is a regular succession of feats, the last but one of which is sufficiently wild, though not unheard of, and leading to the crowning extravagance. The notion of drinking up a river would be both unmeaning and out of place."
From this argument two conclusions are the natural consequences: first, that from drinking up wormwood,—a feat "sufficiently wild but not unheard of," to eating a crocodile, is only a "regular succession of events;" and, secondly, that the "crowning extravagance," to eat a crocodile, is, after all, neither "unmeaning" nor "out of place;" but, on the contrary, quite in keeping and in orderly succession to a "drink up" of the bitter infusion.
MR. SINGER (vol. ii., p. 241.) says:
"Numerous passages of our old dramatic writers show that it was a fashion with the gallants of the time to do some extravagant feat as proof of their love."
I quite agree with him, if he mean to say that the early dramatists ascribe to their gallants a fashion which in reality belongs to the age of Du Gueslin and the Troubadours. But Hamlet himself, in the context of the passage in question, gives the key to his whole purport, when, after some further extravagance, he says:
"Nay, an thoul't mouth,
I'll rant as well as thou."
That being so, why are we to conclude that each feat of daring is to be a tame possibility, save only the last—the crowning extravagance? Why not also the one preceding? Why not a feat equally of mere verbiage and rant? Why not a river?
Adopting MR. HICKSON'S canon of criticism, the grammatical construction of the passage requires that a definite substantive shall be employed to explain the definite something that is to be done. Shakspeare says—
—a totality in itself, without the expression of quantity to make it definite. If we read "drink up wormwood," what does it imply? It may be the smallest possible quantity,—an ordinary dose of bitters; or a pailful, which would perhaps meet the "madness" of Hamlet's daring. Thus the little monosyllable "up" must be disposed of, or a quantity must be expressed to reconcile MR. SINGER'S proposition with Mr. HICKSON'S canon and the grammatical sense of Shakspeare's line.
If with Steevens we understand esile to be a river, "the Danish river Œsil, which empties itself into the Baltic," the Yssel, Wessel, or any other river, real or fictitious, the sense is clear. Rather let Shakspeare have committed a geographical blunder on the information of his day, than break Priscian's head by modern interpretation of his words. If we read "drink up esile" as one should say, "woul't drink up Thames?"—a task as reasonably impossible as setting it on fire (nevertheless a proverbial expression of a thirsty soul, "He'll drink the Thames dry"),—the task is quite in keeping with the whole tenor of Hamlet's extravagant rant.
H.K.S.C.
Brixton.
