Chapter D: W. S. P

* * * * *

SEAL OF WILLIAM D'ALBINI.

(Vol. vii., p. 452.)

The curious article of your correspondent SENEX relative to this seal, as described and figured in Barrett's _History of Attleburgh_, has a peculiar interest as connected with the device of a man combating a lion.

The first time I saw this device was in a most curious MS. on "Memorial Trophies and Funeral Monuments, both in the old Churches of London before the Fire, and the Churches and Mansions in many of the Counties of England." The MS. is written by Henry St. George, and will be found in Lansd. MSS. 874. The arms and tombs are all elaborately and carefully drawn, with their various localities, and the epitaphs which belong to them; and the whole is accompanied with an Index of Persons, and another of Places.

At p. 28. this device of a man combating a lion is represented associated with a shield of arms of many quarterings, showing the arms and alliances of the royal family of Stuart, and is described as having formed the subject of a window in the stewards house adjoining the church of St. Andrew's, Holborn. In the _Catalogue of the Lansdowne MSS._ is a long and interesting note on this device, with references to the various works where it may be found, to which I have had access at the Museum, and find them correct, and opening a subject for investigation of a most curious kind.

The figure of the knight, in this drawing, differs considerably from that on Dr. Barrett's seal. He is here represented on foot, dressed in the chain mail and tunic of the eleventh and twelfth centuries, with a close-barred helmet, with a broad flat crown, such as was worn in France in the time of Louis IX., called St. Louis. The lion is in the act of springing upon him, and he is aiming a deadly blow at him with a ragged staff, as his sword lies broken at his feet. The figure is represented as fighting on the green sward. From a cloud over the lion proceeds an arm clothed in chain mail, and holding in the hand, suspended by a baldrick, a shield bearing the arms of France (modern[3])--Azure, three fleurs-de-lis or. On a scutcheon of pretence in the centre, Argent, a lion ramp. gules, debruised with ragged staff, proper. This device forms the 1st quarter of the quarterings of the Stuart family.

In this device there is no figure of a lizard, dragon, or chimera, whichever it is, under the horse's feet, as represented in the seal of D'Albini.

I could much extend this reply, by showing the antiquity of this device, which by a long process of investigation I have traced as connected with the legendary songs of the troubadours; but I think I have said sufficient for the present, in reply to SENEX.

In addition to the above, I may mention a seal of a somewhat similar character to that of D'Albini, representing a knight on horseback, with his sword in his hand, and his shield of arms, which are also on the housings of the horse, under whose feet is the dragon: on the reverse is the {553} combat of the knight with the lion. The knight is holding his shield in front, and holding his sword in his left hand. This seal is that of Roger de Quincy, earl of Winchester, and appended to a deed "M.CC. Quadrigresimo Quinto." It occurs in Harl. MSS. 6079. p. 127.

E. G. BALLARD.

[Footnote 3: I say _modern_, for the ancient arms of France were Azure, semee of fleurs-de-lis, as they are represented in old glass, when quartered with those of England by our Henries and Edwards.]

Pray request SENEX to withdraw every word he has said about me. I do not recollect that I ever said or wrote a word about the Seal of William D'Albini; and I cannot find that my name occurs in Dr. Barrett's volume.

EDW. HAWKINS.

* * * * *

"WILL" AND "SHALL."

(Vol. vii., p. 356.)

The difficulty as to the proper use of the auxiliaries _shall_ and _will_, will be found to arise from the fact, that while these particles respectively convey a different idea in the _first_ person singular and plural, from that which they imply in the _second_ and _third_ persons singular and plural, the distinction has been lost sight of in the amalgamation of _both_; as if they were interchangeable, in _one_ tense, according to the old grammatical formula _I shall_ or _will_. With a view of giving my own views on the subject, and attempting to supply what appears to me a grammatical deficiency, I shall proceed to make a few remarks; from which I trust your Hong Kong correspondent W. T. M. may be able to form "a clear and definite rule," and students of English assisted in their attempts to overcome this formidable conversational "shibboleth."

The fact is simply thus:--_Will_ is _volitive_ in the _first_ persons singular and plural; and simply _declarative_ or _promissory_ in the _second_ and _third_ persons singular and plural. _Shall_, on the other hand, is _declaratory_ or _promissory_ in the _first_ person singular and plural; _volitive_ in the _second_ and _third_ singular and plural. Thus, the so-called future is properly divisible into _two_ tenses: the _first_ implying _influence_ or _volition_; the _second_ (or future proper) _intention_ or _promise_. Thus:

1. 2.

I _will_ go. I _shall_ go.
Thou _shalt_ go. Thou _wilt_ go.
He _shall_ go. He _will_ go.
We _will_ go. We _shall_ go.
You _shall_ go. You _will_ go.
They _shall_ go. They _will_ go.

When the above is thoroughly comprehended by the pupil, it will be only necessary to impress upon his mind (as a concise rule) the necessity of making use of a different auxiliary in speaking of the future actions of _others_, when he wishes to convey the same idea respecting _such actions_ which he has done, or should do, in speaking of his _own_, and _vice versa_. Thus:

I _will_ go, and you _shall_ accompany me.

(_i. e._ it is my _wish_ to go, and also that you shall accompany me.)

I _shall_ go, and you _will_ accompany me.

(_i. e._ it is my _intention_ to go; and believe, or know, that it is your _intention_ to accompany me.)

The philosophical reason for this distinction will be evident, when we reflect upon the various ideas produced in the mind by the expression of either _volition_ or mere _intention_ (in so far as the latter is distinguishable from active _will_) with regard to _our own_ future actions, and the same terms with reference to the future actions of _others_. It will be seen that a mere _intention_ in the _first_ person, becomes _influence_ when it extends to the _second_ and _third_; we know nothing, _a priori_ (as it were) of the _intentions_ of others, except in so far as we may have the power of _determining_ them. When I say "_I_ shall go" (_j'irai_), I merely express an _intention_ or _promise_ to go; but if I continue "_You_ and _they_ shall go," I convey the idea that _my_ intention or promise is operative on _you_ and _them_; and the terms which I thus use become unintentionally influential or expressive of an extension of _my_ volition to the actions of _others_. Again, the terms which I use to signify _volition_, with reference to _my own_ actions, are but _declaratory_ or _promissory_ when I speak of _your_ actions, or those of _others_. I am conscious of _my own_ wish to go; but _my_ wish not influencing _you_, I do, by continuing the use of the same auxiliary, but express my belief or knowledge that _your_ wish is, or will be, coincident with _my own_. When I say "I will go" (_je veux aller_), I express a desire to go; but if I add, "_You_ and _they_ will go," I simply promise on behalf of _you_ and _them_, or express _my_ belief or knowledge that _you_ and _they_ will also desire to go.

It is not unworthy of note, that the nice balance between _shall_ and _will_ is much impaired by the constant use of the ellipse, "I'll, you'll," &c.; and that _volition_ and _intention_ are, to a great extent, co-existent and inseparable in the _first_ person: the metaphysical reasons for this do not here require explanation.

I am conscious that I have not elucidated this apparently simple, but really complex question, in so clear and concise a manner as I could have wished; but, feeling convinced that my principle at least is sound, I leave it, for better consideration, in the hands of your correspondent.

WILLIAM BATES.

Birmingham.

Brightland's rule is,--

"In the first person simply _shall_ foretells;
In _will_ a threat or else a promise dwells:
{554}
_Shall_ in the second and the third does threat;
_Will_ simply then foretells the coming feat."

(See T. K. Arnold's _Eng. Gram. for Classical Schools_, 3rd edit., p. 41.; Mitford, _Harmony of Language_; and note 5. in Rev. R. Twopeny's _Dissertations on the Old and New Testament_.)

The inconsistency in the use of _shall_ and _will_ is best explained by a doctrine of Mr. Hare's (J. C. H.), the _usus ethicus_ of the future. (See _Cambridge Philological Museum_, vol. ii. p. 203., where the subject is mentioned incidentally, and in illustration; and Latham's _English Language_, 2nd edit., p. 498., where Mr. Hare's hypothesis is given at length. Indeed, from Latham and T. K. Arnold my Note has been framed.)

F. S., B. A.

Lee.

* * * * *

INSCRIPTIONS IN BOOKS.

(Vol. vii., p. 127.)

Your correspondent BALLIOLENSIS, at p. 127. of the current volume of "N. & Q.," gives several forms of inscriptions in books. The following may prove interesting to him, if not to the generality of your readers.

A MS. preserved in the Bibliotheque Sainte Genevieve--it appears to have been the cellarer's book of the ancient abbey of that name, and to have been written about the beginning of the sixteenth century--bears on the fly-sheet the name of "Mathieu Monton, religieux et celerier de l'eglise de ceans," with the following verses:

"Qui ce livre cy emblera,
Propter suam maliciam
Au gibet pendu sera,
Repugnando superbiam
Au gibet sera sa maison,
Sive suis parentibus,
Car ce sera bien raison,
Exemplum datum omnibus."

An Ovid, printed in 1501, belonging to the Bibliotheque de Chinon, has the following verses:

"Ce present livre est a Jehan Theblereau.

"Qui le trouvera sy lui rende:
Il lui poyra bien le vin
Le jour et feste Sainct Martin,
Et une mesenge a la Sainct Jean,
Sy la peut prendre.

"Tesmoin mon synet manuel, cy mis le x^e jour de avril mil v^c trente
et cyns, apres Pasque."

Here follows the paraphe.

School-boys in France write the following lines in their books after their names, and generally accompany them with a drawing of a man hanging on a gibbet:

"Aspice Pierrot pendu,
Quod librum n'a pas rendu;
Pierrot pendu non fuisset,
Si librum reddidisset."

English school-boys use these forms:

"Hic liber est meus
Testis est Deus.
Si quis furetur
A collo pendetur
Ad hunc modum."

This is always followed by a drawing of a gibbet.

"John Smith, his book.
God give him grace therein to look;
Not only look but understand,
For learning is better than house or land.
When house and land are gone and spent,
Then learning is most excellent."

"John Smith is my name,
England is my nation,
London is my dwelling-place,
And Christ is my salvation.
When I am dead and in my grave,
And all my bones are rotten,
When this you see, remember me,
When I am 'most forgotten."

"Steal not this book, my honest friend,
For fear the gallows should be your end,
And when you're dead the Lord should say,
Where is the book you stole away?"

"Steal not this book for fear of shame,
For under lies the owner's name:
The first is JOHN, in letters bright,
The second SMITH, to all men's sight;
And if you dare to steal this book,
The devil will take you with his hook."

HONORE DE MAREVILLE.

Guernsey.

I forward you the following inscription, which I met with in an old copy of Caesar's _Commentaries_ (if I remember rightly) at Pontefract, Yorkshire:

"Si quis hunc librum rapiat scelestus
Atque scelestis manibus reservet
Ibit ad nigras Acherontis undas
Non rediturus."

F. F. G. (Oxford).

* * * * *

BACON'S "ADVANCEMENT OF LEARNING."

(Vol. vii., p.493.)

I have to thank L. for his notice of my edition of the _Advancement of Learning_, as well as for the information which he has given me, of which I hope to have an early opportunity of availing myself. As he expresses a hope that it may be followed by similar editions of other of Bacon's works, I may state that the _Essays_, with the _Colours of Good and Evil_, are already printed, and will be issued very shortly. I am quite conscious that the references in the margin are by no means complete: indeed, as I had only _horae subsecivae_ to give to the work, I did not attempt to make them so. {555} But I thought it might be useful to give a general indication of the sources from which the writer drew, and therefore put in all that I could find, without the expenditure of a great deal of time. Consequently I fear that those I have omitted will not be found to be the most obvious.

I shall be glad to make a few remarks on some of the passages noticed by L.

P. 25.--Of this piece of carelessness--for which I do not the less feel that I deserved a rebuke because L. has not administered it--I had already been made aware by the kindness of a friend. I confess I had never heard of Osorius, which is perhaps no great matter for wonder; but I looked for his name both in Bayle and the catalogue of the library of the British Museum, and by some oversight missed it. I have since found it in both. I cannot help, however, remarking that this is a good example of the advantage of noting _every_ deviation from the received text. Had I tacitly transposed three letters of the word in question (a small liberty compared with some that my predecessors have taken), my corruption of the text might have passed unnoticed. I have not had much experience in these things; but if the works of English writers in general have been tampered with by editors as much as I have found the _Advancement_ and _Essays_ of Lord Bacon to be, I fear they must have suffered great mutilation. I rather incline to think it is the case, for I have had occasion lately to compare two editions of Paley's _Horae Paulinae_, and I find great differences in the text. All this looks suspicious.

P. 34.--I spent some time in searching for this passage in Aristotle, but I could not discover it. I did not look elsewhere.

P. 60.--In the forthcoming edition of the _Essays_ I have referred to Plutarch, _Gryll._, 1., which I incline to think is the passage Bacon had in his mind. The passage quoted from Cicero I merely meant to point out for comparison.

P. 146.--The passage quoted is from Sen. _ad Lucil._, 52.

P. 147.--_Ad Lucil._, 53.

P. 159.--_Ad Lucil._, 71.

Two or three other passages from Seneca will be found without any reference. One of them, p. 13., "Quidam sunt tam umbratiles ut putent in turbido esse quicquid in luce est," I have taken some pains to hunt for, but hitherto without success. Another noticeable one, "Vita sine proposito languida et vaga est," is from _Ep. ad Lucil._, 95.

For the reference to Aristotle I am much obliged. I was anxious to trace all the quotations from Aristotle, but could not find this one.

P. 165.--I cannot answer this question. Is it possible that he was thinking of St. Augustine? In the _Confessions_, i. 25., we kind the expression _vinum erroris_.

P. 177.--No doubt Bacon had read the treatise of Sallust quoted, but my impression is that he thought the proverb had grown out of the line in Plautus.

P. 180.--I have searched again for "alimenta socordiae," as it is quoted in the _Colours of Good and Evil_, but cannot fix upon any passage from which I can say it was taken, though there are many which might have suggested it. One at p. 19. of the _Advancement_, which I missed at first, I have since met with. It is from the _Cherson._, p. 106.

THOMAS MARKBY.

* * * * *

PHOTOGRAPHIC CORRESPONDENCE.

_Test for a good Lens._--The generality of purchasers of photographic lenses can content themselves with merely the following rules when they buy. It ought to be achromatic, _i. e._ consisting of the usual two pieces of crown and flint glass, that its curves are the most recommended, and that it is free from bubbles: to ascertain the latter, hold the lens between the finger and thumb of the right hand, much as an egg-merchant examines an egg before a strong gas flame, and a little to the right of it; this reveals every bubble, however small, and another kind of texture like minute gossamer threads. If these are too abundant, it should not be chosen; although the best lenses are never altogether free from these defects, it is on the whole better to have one or two good-sized bubbles than any density of texture; because it follows, that every inequality will refract pencils of light out of the direction they ought to go; and as bubbles do the same thing, but as they do not refract away so much light, they are not of much consequence.

I believe if a lens is made as thin as it safely can be, it will be quicker than a thicker one. I have two precisely the same focus, and one thinner than the other; the thinner is much the quicker of the two. An apparently indifferent lens should be tried with several kinds of apertures, till it will take sharp pictures; but if no size of aperture can make it, or a small aperture takes a very long time, it is a bad lens. M. Claudet, whose long experience in the art has given him the requisite judgment, changes the diameter of his lenses often during the day; and tries occasionally, in his excellent plan, the places of the chemical focus: by this his time is always nearly the same, and the results steady. As he is always free in communicating his knowledge, he will, I think, always explain his method when he is applied to. The inexperienced photographer is often too prone to blame his lens when the failure proceeds more from the above causes. The variation of the chemical focus during a day's work is often the cause of disappointment: though it does not affect the landscape so much as the portrait operator. {556}

If any one has a lens, the chemical and visual focus being different, his only remedy is M. Claudet's method. And this method will also prove better than any other way at present known of ascertaining whether a lens will take a sharp picture or not. If, however, any plan could be devised for making the solar spectrum visible upon a sheet of paper inside the camera, it would reduce the question of taking sharp pictures at once into a matter of certainty.

All lenses, however, should be tried by the opticians who sell them; and if they presented a specimen of their powers to a buyer, he could see in a moment what their capabilities were.

WELD TAYLOR.

Bayswater.

_Photography and the Microscope_ (Vol. vii., p. 507.).--I beg to inform your correspondents R. I. F. and J., that in Number 3. of the _Quarterly Journal of Microscopical Science_ (Highley, Fleet Street) they will find three papers containing more or less information on the subject of their Query; and a plate, exhibiting two positive photographs from collodion negatives, in the same number, will give a good idea of what they may expect to attain in this branch of the art.

Practically, I know nothing of photography; but, from my acquaintance with the modern achromatic microscope, I venture to say that photography applied to this instrument will be of no farther use than as _an assistant to the draughtsman_. A reference to the plates alluded to will show how incompetent it is to produce _pictures_ of microscopic objects: any one who has seen these objects under a good instrument will acknowledge that these specimens give but a very faint idea of what the microscope actually exhibits.

It is unfortunately the case, that the more perfect the instrument, the less adapted it is for producing photographic pictures; for, in those of the latest construction, the aperture of the object-glasses is carried to such an extreme, that the observer is obliged to keep his hand continually on the fine adjustment, in order to accommodate the focus to the different _planes_ in which different parts of the object lie. This is the case even with so low a power as the half-inch object-glasses, those of Messrs. Powell and Lealand being of the enormous aperture of 65 deg.; and if this is the case while looking through the instrument when this disadvantage is somewhat counteracted by the power which the eye has, to a certain degree, of adjusting itself to the object under observation, how much more inconvenient will it be found in endeavouring to focus the whole object at once on the ground glass plate, where such an accommodating power no longer exists. The smaller the aperture of the object-glasses, in reason, the better they will be adapted for photographic purposes.

Again, another peculiarity of the object-glasses of the achromatic microscope gives rise to a farther difficulty; they are over-corrected for colour, the spectrum is reversed, or the violet rays are projected beyond the red: this is in order to meet the requirements of the eye-piece. But with the photographic apparatus the eye-piece is not used, so that, after the object has been brought visually into focus in the camera, a farther adjustment is necessary, in order to focus for the actinic rays, which reside in the violet end of the spectrum. This is effected by withdrawing the object-glass a little from the object, in which operation there is no guide but experience; moreover, the amount of withdrawal differs with each object-glass.

However, the inconvenience caused by this over-chromatic correction may, I think, be remedied by the use of the achromatic condenser in the place of an object-glass; that kind of condenser, at least, which is supplied by the _first_ microscopic makers. I cannot help thinking that this substitution will prove of some service; for, in the first place, the power of the condenser is generally equal to that of a quarter of an inch object-glass, which is perhaps the most generally useful of all the powers; and again, its aperture is, I think, not usually so great as that which an object-glass of the same power would have; and, moreover, as to correction, though it is slightly spherically under-corrected to accommodate the plate-glass under the object, yet the chromatic correction is _perfect_. The condenser is easily detached from its "fittings," and its application to the camera would be as simple as that of an ordinary object-glass.

However, my conviction remains that, in spite of all that perseverance and science can accomplish, it never will be in the power of the photographer to produce a picture of an object under the microscope, _equally distinct in all its parts_; and unless his art can effect this, I need scarcely say that his best productions can be but useful auxiliaries to the draughtsman.

I see by an advertisement that the Messrs. Highley supply everything that is necessary for the application of photography to the microscope.

H. C. K.

---- Rectory, Hereford.

In reply to your correspondent J., I would ask if he has any photographic apparatus? if so, the answer to his question "What extra apparatus is required to a first-rate microscope in order to obtain photographic microscopic pictures?" would be _None_; but if not, he would require a camera, or else a wooden conical body, with plate-holder, &c., besides the ordinary photographic outfit. Part III. of the _Microscopical Journal_, published by Highley & Son, Fleet Street, will give him all the information he requires. {557}

[phi]. (p. 506.) may find a solution of his difficulties regarding the production of stereoscopic pictures, in the following considerations. The object of having two pictures is to present to _each eye_ an image of what it sees in nature; but as the angle subtended by a line, of which the pupils of the eyes form the extremities, must differ for every distance, and for objects of varying sizes, it follows there is no _absolute_ rule that can be laid down as the only correct one. For _distant_ views there is in nature scarcely any stereoscopic effect; and in a photographic stereoscopic view the effect produced is not really a representation to the eye of the _view itself_, but of _a model of such view_; and the apparent size of the model will vary with the angle of incidence of the two pictures, being _smaller_ and _nearer_ as the angle increases. I believe Professor Wheatstone recommends for landscapes 1 in 25, or about half an inch to every foot.

GEO. SHADBOLT.

_Cement for Glass Baths._--In reply to numerous inquiries which have appeared in "N. & Q." relative to a good cement for making glass baths for photographic purposes, I send a recipe which I copied a year or two ago from some newspaper, and which seems likely to answer the purpose: I have not tried it myself, not being a photographer.

Caoutchouc 15 grains, chloroform 2 ounces, mastic 1/2 an ounce. The two first-named ingredients are to be mixed first, and after the gum is dissolved, the mastic is to be added, and the whole allowed to macerate for a week. When great elasticity is desirable, more caoutchouc may be added. This cement is perfectly transparent, and is to be applied with a brush cold.

H. C. K.

---- Rectory, Hereford.

_Mr. Lyte's Mode of Printing._--All persons who have experienced disappointment in the printing of their positive pictures will feel obliged by MR. LYTE'S suggestion as to the bath; but as the preparation of the positive paper has also a great deal to say to the ultimate result, MR. LYTE would confer an additional obligation if he gave the treatment he adopts for this.

I have observed that the negative collodion picture exercises a good deal of influence on the ultimate colour of the positive, and that different collodion negatives will give different results in this respect, when the paper and treatment with each has been precisely the same. Does this correspond with other persons' experience?