2««i S. N" 72., aiAY 16. '57.] 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



395 



PHOTOGRAPHIC CORRESPONDENCE. 



Optical and Plwtographic Inquiry (2^^ S. iii. 375.) — A 

 tower or spire is observed to be ordinarily less illumined 

 towards its upper portion than at its middle and base. 

 This is a phenomenon perfectly well known to artists and 

 those acquainted with the rudiments of optics. 



Your correspondent Henri, finding this phenomenon 

 duly represented in a photograph, discusses the probable 

 cause with some friends. He gives it as his own opinion 

 that the result is an optical deception, arising from the 

 effects of contrast.* The upper portion of the spire being 

 surrounded by the bright sky, he thinks, appears darker, 

 by contrast, than the lower, which is in juxta-position 

 with the rest of the building. This theory the photo- 

 graph itself will disprove ; for it will show, or ought to 

 show, that the upper part is actually darker than the 

 lower, and this appearance consequently cannot be the 

 result of an optical illusion. 



The opinion of your correspondent's friends, that it "is 

 an atmospheric effect alone, arising from the atmosphere 

 being more opaque as it gets higher from the earth," is 

 entirely opposed to fact ; as the higher we ascend in the 

 atmosphere the clearer it becomes, till on lofty summits 

 the rays of the sun are painfully intense, and the sky ap- 

 pears of a deep blue colour, the natural result of a rarefied 

 atmosphere. However, this is probably not what was in- 

 tended by j'our correspondent's friends; the intended 

 assertion, I apprehend, was, that the upper part of the 

 spire being further removed from the eye than the lower, 

 a greater thickness of atmosphere intervenes, and a dimi- 

 nution of light is the natural result. This theorj', how- 

 ever, is not borne out by the circumstances of the pheno- 

 menon in question ; for, according to it, the light upon 

 the spire ought to diminish gradually and uniformly from 

 the base to the summit, which is certainly not the case ; 

 for, though there is not any well-defined line of demar- 

 cation between the two, the lower two-thirds of the spire 

 or tower will, ordinarily, be decidedly in light, and the 

 upper third as decidedly in shadow. 



i"he true cause of the phenomenon is this. It will be 

 found that it is only on a bright, or at least a moderately 

 bright day, that it is seen at all. On a dark day the 

 tower will present a uniform tint. On a bright day the 

 light which illumines the tower will, of course, not be 

 diffused light alone, but will proceed from the neighbour- 

 hood of the sun, and therefore will strike the tower, and 

 be reflected thence to the eye of the spectator at a parti- 

 cular angle, which angle will, of course, vary with the 

 hour of the day. A little consideration will show that, 

 at the elevation from which a tower or spire are ordi- 

 narily seen, the full light which impinges on the upper 

 part will be reflected over the head of the spectator, and 

 cannot therefore reach his eye ; while, for the same simple 

 reason, if the eye, preserving the same horizontal distance 

 from the lower as before, be elevated so as to view it a 

 little below the level of the top, the upper two-thirds Avill 

 be in full light, and the lower one-third in comparative 

 shadow. H. C. K. 



Rectory, Hereford. 



^tj^litS to Minav ^\itvic^. 



Thomas CcRsar (2"'^ S. iii. 328.) — Although I 

 cannot answer Mr. Foss's Query, by telling him 



* This subject has been well treated by M. Chevreul, 

 in his work on Colour, translated by Charles Martel. 

 Longmans, 1854. 



with any certainty who was the Thomas Cesar 

 (for that was the spelling according to the Record) 

 who was imprisoned in the Marshalsea by James I., 

 July 18, 1609, I have found a document that 

 proves there was another Thomas Cesar besides 

 the baron, who possibly might be the man. 



By a Patent dated June 23, 7 Jac. 1609, Thomas 

 Cesar, one of the king's servants, is appointed to 

 the office of Keeper of the Clock to " our dearest 

 son the Prince," on account of the " cunning and 

 experience which we have found in our said ser- 

 vant in the profession of keeper of clocks ; " with 

 a salary of 2s. a day, and an allowance of 3Z. 6*. id. 

 for a livery yearly. 



While that this Cesar was very soon removed 

 from his office of Clock Keeper to the Prince is 

 clear from the fact that, in the list of Prince 

 Henry's household, published in the Regulations 

 of the Royal Households, p. 310., by the Society of 

 Antiquaries, dated May 9, 1610, the name of the 

 " Clocke Keeper " is Emanuel Bull. This adds to 

 the probability that the former holder, Thos. Cesar, 

 was the man who had been arrested at Whitehall, 

 and was still in the Marshalsea. 



Mr. Foss shows that the person imprisoned 

 could not have been the baron ; and if he will 

 look among the Additional MSS. in the British 

 Museum he will find additional confirmation. An 

 undated letter (12497, No. 406.) but inscribed 

 Wednesday morning, from the Rev. D. Craw- 

 shawe, of Chancery Lane, is indorsed by Sir Julius 

 CtEsar, " 18 July, 1610. Mr. D. Crawshawe's tes- 

 timony of my brother Sir Thos. Caesar's godly dis- 

 position that morning he died," and is indexed by 

 Sir Julius in the same manner. This not only 

 shows that Lodge's account of Sir Thomas's death 

 is erroneous, but accords Avith the appointment of 

 another Cursitor Baron in Michaelmas Term, 

 1610. Wm. Durrant Cooper. 



81. Guilford Street. 



Nag's Head Consecration (2"'* S. iii. — .) — • 

 This fable is, I believe, rejected now by the lead- 

 ing Romanists, and therefore needs no further 

 refutation. But I do not remember to have seen 

 it stated that, even had it been true, we still have 

 the succession in the Church of England. For it 

 appears from the register at Lambeth, as-quoted 

 in Percival's Apology for the Apostolical Succession 

 in the Church of England (which I shall be happy 

 to lend to the Rev. W. Eraser if he fail in pro- 

 curing it otherwise), p. 183., that Mark, Arch- 

 bishop of Spalatro, was one of the six consecrators 

 of Nicholas Felton of Bristol, and George Mon- 

 teigne of Lincoln, both of whom assisted to con- 

 secrate Archbishops Williams of York and Laud 

 of Canterbury, and to whom the first twenty 

 bishops consecrated In Charles II.'s reign, and 

 without doubt all the rest, can trace their suc- 

 cession. 



