Notes and Queries, Number 186, May 21, 1853

SETANTIORUM PORTUS

(Vol. vii., pp. 180. 246.)

Although the positions assigned by Camden to the ancient names of the various estuaries on the coasts of Lancashire and Cumberland are very much at variance with those laid down by more modern geographers; still, with regard to the particular locality assigned by him to the Setantiorum Portus, he has made a suggestion which seems worthy the attention of your able correspondent C.

His position for Morecambe Bay is a small inlet to the south of the entrance of Solway Firth, into which the rivers Waver and Wampool empty themselves, and on which stands "the abbey of Ulme, or Holme Cultraine." He derives the name from the British, as signifying a "crooked sea," which doubtless is correct; we have Môr taweh, the main sea; Morudd, the Red Sea; and Môr camm may be supposed to indicate a bay much indented with inlets. It is needless to say that the present Morecambe Bay answers this description far more accurately than that in the Solway Firth. Belisama Æstuarium he assigns to the mouth of the Ribble, and is obliged to allot Setantiorum Portus to the remaining estuary, now called Morecambe Bay. However, he seems not quite satisfied with this last arrangement, and suggests that it would be more appropriate if we might read, as is found in some copies, Setantiorum λίμνη, instead of λιμὴν, thus assigning the name of Setantii to the inhabitants of the lake district.

The old editions of Ptolemy, both Greek and Latin, are very incorrect, and, there is little doubt, have suffered from alterations and interpolations at the hands of ignorant persons. I have not access at present to any edition of his geography, either of Erasmus, Servetus, or Bertius, so I know not whether any weight should be allowed to the following circumstance; in the Britannia Romana, in Gibson's Camden, this is almost the only Portus to be found round the coast of England. The terms there used are (with one more exception) invariably æstuarium, or fluvii ostium. If this variation in the old reading be accepted, the appellation as given by Montanus, Bertius, and others, to Winandermere, becomes more intelligible.

    H. C. K.

—– Rectory, Hereford.

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.