Chapter M: L. G

At Misterton, near Crewkerne, in Somersetshire, Mary Mounford was clerk for more than thirty years. She gave up the office about the year 1832, and is now in Beaminster Union, just eighty-nine years old.

HERBERT L. ALLEN.

* * * * *

POETICAL EPITHETS OF THE NIGHTINGALE.

(Vol. vii., p. 397.; Vol. viii., p. 112.)

To the one hundred and ten epithets poetically applied to the nightingale and its song, collected by MR. BEDE, permit me to add sixty-five more.

_Azure-crested._ Cowper.
_Bewailing._ Drummond.
_Chaunting._ Skelton.
_Chaste poet._ Grainger.
_Dappled._ Anon.[2]
_Darling._ Carey.
_Daulian minstrel._ Herrick.
_Delightful._ Shelley.
_Dusky-brown._ Trench.
_Early._ C. Smith.
_Elegiac._ Dibdin.
_Enamoured._ Shelley.
_Fabled._ Byron.
_Fair._ Smart.
_Greeful._[3] Lodge.
_Gurgling._ Lloyd.
_Hallow'd._ Moore.
_Hundred-throated._ Tennyson.
_Invisible._ Hurdis.
_Lesbian._ Bromley.
_Love-learned._ Thomson.
_Love-sick._ Warton.
_Loud-complaining._ Gibbons.
_Lulling._ Anon.[4]
_Lute-tongued._ Anon.[5]
_Mellow._ Strangford.
_Midnight minstrel._ Logan.
_Moody._ Hurdis.
_Nightly._ Bidlake.
_Pandionian._ Drummond.
_Panged._ Hood.
_Pitiful._ Herrick.
_Plaintful._ Drummond.
_Quavering._ Poole.
_Querulous._ Kennedy.
_Rapturous._ Southey.
_Rural._ Dryden.
_Sable._[6] Drummond.
_Sadly-pleasing._[7] Anon.
_Secret._ Shelley.
_Sely._ Chaucer.
_Sequestered._ J. Montgomery.
_Shy._ Dallas.
_Silver-tuned._ Carey.
_Simple._ Derrick.
_Sobbing._ Planche.
_Soft-tuned._ Whaley.
_Solitary._ Bowring.
_Sorrow-soothing._ Shaw.
_Sprightly._ Elton.
_Sweet-breasted._ Beaumont and Fletcher.
_Sweet-tongued._ Anon.[8]
_Sylvan syren._ Pattison.
_Tearful._ Potter.
_Tenderest._ Wiffen.
_Thracian._ Lewis.
_Transporting._ Hurdis.
_Unadorned._ Hurdis.
_Unhappy._ Croxall.
_Watchful._ Philips.
_Witching._ Proctor.
_Woodland._ Smith.
_Wretched._ Shirley.
_Wronged._ P. Fletcher.
_Yearly._ Drayton.
_Young._ Lewis.

The character of the mere song alone has been described in the following terms:

_Melodious lay._ Potter.
_Lofty song._ Yalden.
_A storm of sound._ Shelley.
_Impressive lay._ Merry.
_Swelling slow._ Kirk White.
_Tremulously slow._ C. Smith.
_Wild melody._ Shelley.
_Thick melodious note._ Lloyd.
_Hymn of lore._ Logan.
_Melting lay._ Henley.
_Harmonious woe._ Pomfret.
_Well-tuned warble._ Shakspeare.
{476}
_Luscious lays._ Warton.
_Sadly sweet._ Potter.
_Varied strains._ Pope.
_Thick-warbled notes._ Milton.

W. PINKERTON.

Ham.

[Footnote 2: Blackwood's Mag., Jan. 1838.]

[Footnote 3:

"I regard the prettie, greeful bard
With tearfull, yet delightfull, notes complaine."--_Heliconia._

[Footnote 4: Lays of the Minnesingers.]

[Footnote 5: Weekly Visitor, July, 1835.]

[Footnote 6: "Night's sable birds, which plain when others sleep."--_Thaumantia._]

[Footnote 7: Evening Elegy.--_Poetical Calendar._]

[Footnote 8: Harleian Miscellany, vol. viii.]

* * * * *

PHOTOGRAPHIC CORRESPONDENCE.

_Photographic Exhibition._--We understand that the Photographic Society has made arrangements for an exhibition of photographs in the metropolis during the months of January and February next. The exhibition will not be confined to the works of native photographers, but will comprise specimens of the most eminent foreign artists, who have been specially invited to contribute. From the advances which have been made in this favourite art, even since the recent exhibition in the rooms of the Society of Arts, we may confidently anticipate that the display on the present occasion will be one of the highest interest.

_How much Light is obstructed by a Lens?_--Can any of your scientific correspondents furnish me with an approximation to the quantity of light which is transmitted through an ordinary double achromatic lens, say of Ross, Voightlander, or any other celebrated maker?

LUX.

_Stereoscopic Articles._--I cannot agree to my opponent's assumed amendment (?) (Vol. viii., p. 419.) _space_, for the simple reason that it would be virtually abandoning the whole of the points in dispute between us; when farther discussion and more mature consideration, only tend to convince me more firmly of the correctness of the propositions I have advocated, viz.:

1st. That circumstances _may_ and _do_ arise in which a better result is obtained in producing stereographs, when the chord of the angle of generation is more or less than 2-1/2 inches.

2nd. That the positions of the camera should _not_ be parallel but radial.

I certainly thought that I had, as I intended, expressed the fact that I treat the cameras _precisely as two eyes_, and moreover I still contend that they should be so treated; my object being to present to each eye _exactly such a picture and in such a direction as would be presented under certain circumstances_. The plane of delineation being a flat, instead of a curved surface, has nothing whatever to do with this point, because the curves of the retinas are not portions of one curve having a common centre, but each having its own centre in the axis of the pupil. That a plane surface for receiving the image is not so good as a spherical one would be, is not disputed; but this observation applies to photographs _universally_, and is only put up with as the lesser of two evils. A plane surface necessarily contracts the field of view to such a space as could be cut out of the periphery of a hollow sphere, the versed sine of which bears but a small ratio to its chord.

There is another misunderstanding into which my opponent has fallen, viz. the part of the object to be delineated, which should form the centre of radiation, is not the most contiguous visible point, but the most remote principal point of observation. I perceive that this is the case from two illustrations he was kind enough to forward me, being stereographs of a [T-square] square, placed with the points of junction towards the observer, and the tail receding from him; and in one case the angle of the square is made the centre of radiation, and while its distance from the camera is only six feet, the points of delineation are no less than three feet apart.

To push an argument to the extreme to test its value, is quite right; but this goes far beyond the extreme, if I may be allowed such a very Hibernian expression.

No object, however minute, can be clearly seen if brought nearer to the eyes than a certain point, because it will be what is technically called out of focus. It is true that this point differs in different individuals, but the _average distance_ of healthy vision is 10 inches. Now, adopting MR. MERRITT'S own standard of 2-1/2 inches between the eyes, it is clear that supposing the central point had been rightly selected, the distance between the cameras was _only double_ what might have been taken an extreme distance. It is scarcely necessary to suggest what a person devoid of taste (in which category I am no doubt included) might do in producing monstrosities by adopting the radial method, as such an one is not very likely to produce good results at all.

I now address myself to another accusation. It is quite true that I am unacquainted with the _scholastic dogmas_ of perspective, but equally true that I am familiar with _the facts_ thereof, as any one must be who has studied optical and geometrical science generally; and while I concur in the propositions as enunciated for a one-eyed picture, I by no means agree to the assumption that the "vanishing points," in the two stereographs taken radially with the necessary precautions, "would be so far apart, that they could not in the stereoscope flow into one;" on the contrary, direct experiment shows me, what reason also suggests, that they do flow into one as _completely as in nature when viewed by both eyes_.

I put the proposition thus, because I do not hesitate to avow that in nature, as interpreted by binocular vision, these points do not _absolutely_, but only approximately, flow _into one_; otherwise one eye would be as effective as two.

I have not the smallest objection to my views being considered "false to art," as, alas! her fidelity to nature is by no means beyond suspicion. {477}

Lastly, as to the model-like appearance of stereographs taken at a large angle, for the fact I need only refer the objector to most of the beautiful foreign views now so abundant in our opticians' shops: for the reason, is it not palpable that increasing the width of the eyes is analogous to decreasing the size of the object? and if naturally we cannot "perceive at one view three sides of a cake, two heads of a drum, nor any other like absurdity," it is only because we do not use objects sufficiently _small_ to permit us to do so. Even while I am writing this, I have before me a small rectangular inkholder about 1-1/4 inches square, and distant from my eyes about one foot, in which the very absurd phenomenon complained of does exist, the front, top, and _both_ sides being perfectly visible at once: and being one of those obstinate fellows who will persist in judging personally from experience if possible, I fear I shall be found incorrigible on the points on which your correspondent has so kindly endeavoured to enlighten me.

GEO. SHADBOLT.

_To introduce Clouds_ (Vol. viii., p. 451.) as desired by your correspondent [Greek: S]., the negative must be treated in the sky by solution of cyanide of potassium laid on in the form desired with a camel's hair pencil. This discharges a portion of the reduced silver, and allows the light to penetrate; but great care is required to stop the action by well washing in water before the process has gone too far. White clouds are produced by painting them in with a black pigment mixed in size.

GEO. SHADBOLT.

* * * * *

Replies to Minor Queries.

_Death of Edward II._ (Vol. viii., p. 387.).--P. C. S. S. has noticed with considerable surprise the very strange assertion of MR. C. M. INGLEBY with reference to the murder of Edward II. at Berkeley Castle, viz. that "Echard and Rapin are silent, both as to the event and the locality." If MR. INGLEBY will again refer to Echard (vol. i. p. 341., edit. 1718) and to Rapin (vol. iii. p. 147., edit. 1749), he will perceive that the two historians record "both the event and the locality."

MR. INGLEBY did not perhaps consider that the transaction in question took place during the reign of Edward III.; and is, therefore, not to be sought for at the close of that of Edward _II._ (where probably MR. C. M. INGLEBY looked for it), but among the occurrences in the time of Edward _III._ MR. C. M. INGLEBY will assuredly find it there, not only in Echard and Rapin, but in every other History of England since the date of the "event."

P. C. S. S.

_Luther no Iconoclast_ (Vol. viii., p. 335.).--An occasional contributor wishes the Editor to note down this Query. What could have led your correspondent J. G. FITCH to use so peculiarly inappropriate a synonym for Martin Luther as "the great Iconoclast?" Has he any historical evidence for Luther's breaking a single image?

It is not to defend Luther, but to point out a defect in his teaching, as it is regarded by the adherents of other Protestant churches, that Dr. Maclaine has said, in his note on Book IV. ch. i. Sec. 18. of Mosheim:

"It is evident, from several passages in the writings of Luther, that
he was by no means averse to the use of images, but that, on the
contrary, he looked upon them as adapted to excite and animate the
devotion of the people."

Mosheim, and Merle D'Aubigne, and probably any other historian of the Reformation in Germany, may be cited as witnesses for the notorious fact, that Carlstadt excited the citizens of Wittemberg to break the images in their churches when Luther was concealed in the Castle of Wartburg, and that he rebuked and checked these proceedings on his return. See Mosheim, as cited before, or D'Aubigne, book IX. ch. vii. and viii.

H. W.

_Rev. Urban Vigors_ (Vol. viii., p. 340.).--My great-great-grandmother was a sister of Bishop Vigors, who was consecrated to the see of Leighlin and Ferns, March 8, 1690. He, I know, was a near relative of the Rev. Urban Vigors. An Urban Vigors of Ballycormack, co. Wexford, also married my great-great-aunt, a Miss Thomas, sister of Vigors Thomas, Esq., of Limerick. I should, equally with your correspondent Y. S. M., wish to know any particulars of the "Vigors" family; and should be delighted to enter into correspondence with him.

W. SLOANE SLOANE-EVANS.

Cornworthy Vicarage, Totnes.

_Portrait of Baretti_ (Vol. VIII., p. 411.).--In reply to MR. G. R. CORNER'S Query regarding Sir Joshua Reynolds' picture of Baretti, I can give him the information he requires.

This very interesting portrait is now at my brother's, Holland House, Kensington.

My late father, Lord Holland, had a pretty picture of the late Lord Hertford's mother (I believe), or some near relation of his. Not being connected with that family, my father offered it to Lord Hertford, leaving it to his lordship to give him such picture as he might choose in exchange. Some time afterwards this portrait of Baretti was sent, and was much prized and admired. It represents Baretti reading a small book, which he holds close to his face with both hands; he is in a white coat, and the whole carries with it a certainty of resemblance. This occurred about twenty-five years ago. Perhaps it may interest your readers to learn that our distinguished {478} painter, Watts, painted for my brother, Lord Holland, a portrait of another distinguished Italian, Mr. Panizzi, and pendant to the former. He is represented leaning forward and writing, and the likeness is very striking.