Notes and Queries, Number 203, September 17, 1853

    Weld Taylor.

Bayswater.

Stereoscopic Angles.—When I last addressed you, I fancied I should set the stereoscopic-angle question at rest. It appears, however, that Mr. G. Shadbolt is unconvinced, and as I alone (to the best of my knowledge) have defined and solved the problem in relation to this subject, you will perhaps allow me to offer a few words in rejoinder to Mr. S.'s arguments which, had that gentleman thought more closely, would not have been advanced. This is also requisite, because, from their speciousness, they are likely to mislead such as take what they read for granted. Mr. S. says that when the stereographs are placed at the same distance from the eyes as the focal length of the lens, that 2¼ inches is the best space for the cameras to be apart; and that were this space increased, the result would be as though the pictures were taken from models. To this I reply, that the only correct space for the cameras to be apart is 2½ inches (i. e. the space usually found to be from pupil to pupil of our eyes), and this under every circumstance; and that any departure from this must produce error. As to the model-like appearance, I cannot see the reason of it. Next Mr. Shadbolt says, and rightly, that when the pictures are seen from a less distance than the focal length of the lens, they appear to be increased in bulk. But the "obvious remedy" I pronounce to be wrong, as it must produce error. The remedy is nevertheless obvious, and consists in placing the stereographs at the same distance from the eyes as the focal length of the lens. But, if this cannot be done, it were surely better to submit to some trifling exaggeration than to absolute deformity and error. Mr. S. says also, that as we mainly judge of distance, &c. by the convergence of the optic axis of our eyes (Query, How do persons with only one eye judge?), so, in short or medium distances, it were better to let the camera radiate from its centre to the principal object to be delineated. The result of this must be error, as the following illustration will show. Let the sitter (for it is especially recommended in portraits) hold before him, horizontally, and in parallelism with the picture, a ruler two feet long; and let planes parallel to the ruler pass through the sitter's ears, eyes, nose, &c. The consequence would be that the ruler, and all the other planes parallel to it, would have two vanishing points, and all the features be erroneously rendered. This, to any one conversant with perspective, should suffice. But, as all are not acquainted with perspective, perhaps the following illustration may prove more convincing. Suppose an ass to stand facing the observer; a boy astride him, with a big drum placed before him. Now, under the treatment recommended by Mr. G. Shadbolt, both sides of the ass would be visible; both the boy's legs; and the drum would have two heads. This would be untrue, absurd, ridiculous, and quite as wonderful as Mr. Fenton's twelve-feet span view from across the Thames.

Once more, and I shall have done with the present arguments of Mr. G. Shadbolt. He says that the two pictures should have exactly the same range of vision. This I deny: for, were it so, there would be no stereoscopic effect. Let the object be a column: it is evident that a tangent to the left side of the column from the right eye, could not extend so far to the left as a tangent to the left side of the column from the left eye, and vice versâ. And it is only by this difference in the two pictures (or, in other words, the range of vision) that our conceptions of solidity are created. This is not exactly the test to suit the views of Mr. Shadbolt, as I am quite aware; but I chose it for its simplicity, and because it will bear demonstration; and my desire has been to elicit truth, and not to perpetuate error.

In conclusion, I beg to refer Mr. G. Shadbolt to my definition and solution of the stereoscopic problem—which I then said I believed—but which I now unhesitatingly assert to be correct.

    T. L. Marriott.

Ammonio-nitrate of Silver.—The inability of your correspondent Philo-pho. to form the ammonio-nitrate of silver from a solution of nitrate of silver, which has been used to excite albumenized paper, is in all probability owing to the presence of a small quantity of nitrate of ammonia, which has been imparted to the solution by the paper.

Salts of ammonia form, with those of silver, double salts, from which the oxide of silver is not precipitated by the alkalies.

I cannot however explain how it was that the solution had lost none of its silver, for the paper could not in such case have been rendered sensitive.

    J. Leachman.

20. Compton Terrace, Islington.

Replies to Minor Queries

Sir Thomas Elyot (Vol. viii., p. 220.).—Particulars respecting this once celebrated diplomatist and scholar may be collected from Bernet's Hist. Reformation, ed. 1841, i. 95.; Strype's Ecclesiastical Memorials, i. 221. 263., Append. No. LXII.; Ellis's Letters, ii. 113.; Archæologia, xxxiii.; Wright's Suppression of Monasteries, 140.; Lelandi Encomia, 83.; Leland's Collectanea, iv. 136-148.; Retrospective Review, ii. 381.; Privy Purse Expenses of Princess Mary, 82. 230.; Chamberlain's Holbein Heads; Smith's Autographs; Fuller's Worthies (Cambridgeshire); Wood's Athenæ Oxonienses, i. 58.; Lysons' Cambridgeshire, 159.

The grant of Carlton cum Willingham in Cambridgeshire to Sir Thomas Elliot and his wife is enrolled in the Exchequer (Originalia, 32 Hen. VIII., pars 3. rot. 22. vel 221.); and amongst the Inquisitions filed in that Court is one taken after his death (Cant. and Hunt., 37 vel 38 Hen. VIII.).

I believe it will be found on investigation, that Sir Richard Elyot (the father of Sir Thomas) was of Wiltshire rather than of Suffolk. See Leland's Collectanea, iv. 141. n., and an Inquisition in the Exchequer of the date of 6 or 7 Hen. VIII. thus described in the Calendar: "de manerio de Wanborough com. Wiltes proficua cujus manerii Ricardus Eliot percepit."

    C. H. Cooper.

Cambridge.

Judges styled "Reverend" (Vol. viii., p. 158.).—As it is more than probable that your pages may in future be referred to as authority for any statement they contain, especially when the fact they announce is vouched by so valued a name as that of my friend York Herald, I am sure that he will excuse me for correcting an error into which he has fallen, the more especially as Lord Campbell is equally mistaken (Lord Chancellors, i. 539.).

York Herald states, that "Anthony Fitz-Herbert was appointed Chief Justice of the Common Pleas in 1523, and died in 30 Henry VIII." Fitz-Herbert was never Chief Justice. He was made a judge of the Common Pleas in 1522; and so continued till his death at the time mentioned, 1538. During that period, the office of Chief Justice of the Common Pleas was successively held by Sir Thomas Brudenell till 1531, by Sir Robert Norwich till 1535, and then by Sir John Baldwin, who was Chief Justice at the time of Fitz-Herbert's death.

William Rastall (afterwards Judge), in the early part of his career, joined his father in the printing business, and there are several books with his imprimatur. It was during that time probably that he formed the table to the Natura Brevium of Anthony Fitz-Herbert, mentioned in the title-page to York Herald's volume.

    Edward Foss.

"Hurrah" and other War-cries (Vol. vii., pp. 595. 633.; Vol. viii., pp. 20. 88.).—Hurrah is the war-cry of many nations, both in the army and navy. The Dutch seem to have adopted it from the Russians, poeta invito, as we see in the following verses of Staring van den Willenborg:

"Is 't hoera? Is 't hoera?
Wat drommel kan 't u schelen?
Brul, smeek ik, geen Kozakken na!
Als Fredrik's batterijën spelen—
Als Willem's trommen slaan
Blijv' Neêrland's oorlogskreet: 'Val aan!'
Waar jong en oud de vreugd der overwinning deelen,
Bij Quatre-Bras' trofee,
Blijve ons gejuich Hoezee!"

Accept or reject this doggerel translation:

"Is it hurrah? Is it hurrah?
What does that concern you, pray?
Howl not like Cossacks of the Don!
But, when Frederic's batteries pour—
When William's drums do roar—
Holland's war-cry still be 'Fall on!'
When old and young
Raise the victor's song,
At Quatre-Bras' trophy,
Let Huzzah our joy-cry be!"

Hoera (hurrah) and hoezee (huzza), then, in the opinion of Staring, and indeed of many others, have not the same origin. Some have derived hoezee from haussé, a French word of applause at the hoisting (Fr. hausser) of the admiral's flag. Bilderdijk derives it from Hussein, a famous Turkish warrior, whose memory is still celebrated. Dr. Brill says, "hoezee seems to be only another mode of pronouncing the German juchhé." Van Iperen thinks it taken from the Jewish shout, "Hosanna!" Siegenbeek finds "the origin of hoezee in the shout of encouragement, 'Hou zee!' (hold sea)." Dr. Jager cites a Flemish author, who says "that this cry ('hou zee,' in French, tiens mer) seems especially to belong to us; since it was formerly the custom of our seamen always 'zee te houden' (to keep the sea), and never to seek shelter from storms." Dr. Jager, however, thinks it rather doubtful "that our hoezee should come from 'hou zee,' especially since we find a like cry in other languages." In old French huz signified a cry, a shout; and the verb huzzer, or hucher, to cry, to shout; and in Dutch husschen had the same meaning.—From the Navorscher.

Major André (Vol. viii., p. 174).—The sisters of Major André lived until a comparatively very recent date in the Circus at Bath, and this fact may point Serviens to inquiries in that city.

    T. F.

In reply to Serviens's Query about Major André, I beg to inform him that there is a good picture of the Major by Sir Joshua Reynolds in the house of Mrs. Fenning, at Tonbridge Wells, who, I have no doubt, would be enabled to give him some particulars respecting his life.

    W. H. P.

Early Edition of the New Testament (Vol. viii., p. 219.).—The book, about which your correspondent A. Boardman inquires, is an imperfect copy of Tyndale's Version of the New Testament: probably it is one of the first edition; if so, it was printed at Antwerp in 1526; but if it be one of the second edition, it was printed, I believe, at the same place in 1534. Those excellent and indefatigable publishers, Messrs. Bagster & Sons, have within the last few years reprinted both these editions; and if your correspondent would apply to them, I have no doubt but they will be able to resolve him on all the points of his inquiry.

    F. B–w.

Ladies' Arms borne in a Lozenge (Vol. vii., p. 571. Vol. viii., pp. 37. 83.).—As this question is still open, I forward you the translation of an article inserted by me in the first volume of the Navorscher. Lozenge-formed shields have not been always, nor exclusively, used by ladies; for, in a collection of arms from 1094 to 1649 (see Descriptive Catalogue of Impressions from Scottish Seals, by Laing, Edinburgh) are many examples of ladies' arms, but not one in which the shield has any other form than that used at the time by men. In England, however, as early as the fourteenth century, the lozenge was sometimes used by ladies, though perhaps only by widows. Nisbet (System of Heraldry, ii. 35.) mentions a lozenge-formed seal of Johanna Beaufort, Queen Dowager of Scotland, attached to a parchment in 1439; while her arms, at an earlier period, were borne on a common shield (Gent. Mag., April, 1851). In France the use of the lozenge for ladies was very general; yet in the great work of Flacchio (Généalogie de la Maison de la Tour) are found several hundred examples of ladies' arms on oval shields; and in Vredii Genealogia comitum Flandriæ (p. 130.), on shields rounded off below. On the other hand, lozenges have sometimes been used by men: for instance, on a seal of Ferdinand, Infant of Spain, in Vredius, l. c. p. 148.; also on a dollar of Count Maurice of Hanau, in Kohler's Müntzbelustig. 14. See again the arms of the Count of Sickingen, in Siebmacher, Suppl. xi. 2. So much for the use of the lozenge. Most explanations of its origin appear equally far-fetched. That of Menestrier, in his Pratique des Armoires (p. 14.), seems to me the least forced. He derives the French name lozange from the Dutch lofzang:

"In Holland," he says, "the custom prevails every year, in May, to affix verses and lofzangen (songs of praise) in lozenge-formed tablets on the doors of newly-made magistrates. Young men hung such tablets on the doors of their sweethearts, or newly-married persons. Also on the death of distinguished persons, lozenge-shaped pieces of black cloth or velvet, with the arms, name, and date of the death of the deceased, were exhibited on the front of the house. And since there is little to be said of women, except on their marriage or death, for this reason has it become customary on all occasions to use for them the lozenge-shaped shield."

In confirmation of this may be mentioned, that formerly lozange and lozanger were used in the French for louange and louer; of which Menestrier, in the above-quoted work (p. 431.), cites several instances.

Besides the conjectures mentioned by H. C. K. and Broctuna, may be cited that of Laboureur: who finds both the form and the name in the Greek word ὀξυγώνιος (ozenge with the article, l'ozenge); and of Scaliger, who discovers lausangia in laurangia, lauri folia. See farther, Bernd. Wapenwesen, Bonn, 1841.

    John Scott.

Norwich.

Sir William Hankford (Vol. ii., p. 161. &c.).—Your learned correspondent Mr. Edward Foss proves satisfactorily that Sir W. Gascoigne was not retained in his office of Chief Justice by King Hen. V. But Mr. Foss seems to have overlooked entirely the Devonshire tradition, which represents Sir William Hankford (Gascoigne's successor) to be the judge who committed Prince Henry. Risdon (v. Bulkworthy, Survey of Devon, ed. 1811, p. 246.), after mentioning a chapel built by Sir W. Hankford, gives this account of the matter:

"This is that deserving judge, that did justice upon the king's son (afterwards King Henry V.), who, when he was yet prince, commanded him to free a servant of his, arraigned for felony at the king's bench bar; whereat the judge replied, he would not. Herewith the prince, enraged, essayed himself to enlarge the prisoner, but the judge forbad; insomuch as the prince in fury stept up to the bench, and gave the judge a blow on the face, who, nothing thereat daunted, told him boldly: 'If you will not obey your sovereign's laws, who shall obey you when you shall be king? Wherefore, in the king's (your father's) name, I command you prisoner to the king's bench.' Whereat the prince, abashed, departed to prison. When King Henry IV., his father, was advertised thereof (as fast flieth fame), after he had examined the circumstances of the matter, he rejoiced to have a son so obedient to his laws, and a judge of such integrity to administer justice without fear or favour of the person; but withal dismissed the prince from his place of president of the council, which he conferred on his second son."

Risdon makes no mention of Sir W. Hankford's being retained in office by King Henry V. But at p. 277., v. Monkleigh, he gives the traditional account of Hankford's death (anno 1422), which represents the judge, in doubt of his safety, and mistrusting the sequel of the matter, to have committed suicide by requiring his park-keeper to shoot at him when under the semblance of a poacher:

"Which report (Risdon adds) is so credible among the common sort of people, that they can show the tree yet growing where this fact was committed, known by the name of Hankford Oak."