420 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



[No. 209. 



must, radiate from the centre when the glass at 

 Tsack of camera would be oblique to the wall, and 

 the plinth, coping, top and bottom of pedestal, 

 would have two vanishing points, at opposite sides 

 of the centre, or observer's eye ; both sides of the 

 ass, both the legs of boy, and two heads to the 

 drum would be visible ; whilst the two sides of 

 pedestals would have each a vanishing point,- 

 serving for all lines parallel to them. But these 

 vanishing points would be so far apart that they 

 could not, in the stereoscope, flow into one : the 

 result would be, that the buttresses would be 

 wider at back tlian in front, as would also the 

 pedestal ; while the stick held by the boy would 

 appear like two sticks united in front. This would 

 be untrue to nature, false to art, preposterously 

 absui'd, and I pronounce it to be altogether 

 erroneous. 



This being the case with a long distance, so 

 must it be with shorter distances, modified in 

 exact proportion to the diminution of space 

 between the cameras, &c. For, let the object be 

 a piece of wood three feet long, four inches wide, 

 and six inches deep, with a small square piece 

 one inch, and six inches high, placed upright 

 exactly on a line from end to end of the three 

 feet (that is, one at each end) and midway between 

 the sides. Let this arrangement be placed across 

 another piece of wood three or four feet long, 

 which will thus be at right angles to the piece at 

 top. By my method all will be correct — true to 

 nature and to art, and perfectly stereoscopic : 

 whilst by the radial method (recommended by 

 Mr, Shadbolt), with two feet space for cameras, 

 there would be the top piece divided at the 

 farther end, where there would be two small up- 

 right pieces instead of one ; and this because 

 the two vanishing points could not, in stereo- 

 scope, flow into one : whilst the lower piece of 

 wood would have two vanishing points at oppo- 

 site sides. This, then, being untrue to nature, 

 untrue in art, in short, a most absurd mis- 

 representation, I pronounce to be utterly wrong. 

 I have made the space two feet between cameras 

 in order to show how ridiculous those pictures 

 might become where there is an absence of 

 taste, as, by such a person, two or ten feet are as 

 likely to be taken as any less oifensively incorrect. 



As regards range of vision, I apologise to Mr. 

 Shadbolt for having misconceived his exact 

 meaning, and say that I perfectly agree with him. 



With respect to the " trifling exaggeration " 

 I spoke of, allow me to explain. For the sake of 

 clearness, I denominate the angle formed from 

 the focal point of lens, and the glass at back of 

 camera, the angle of delineation ; the said glass, 

 the plane of delineation ; and the angle formed by 

 the stereograph to the eye, the stereoscopic angle. 

 It mvist be borne in mind that the stereoscopic 

 angle is that subtended by one stereograph and 



the eye. I find by experiments that the angle 

 of delineation is very often larger than the stereo- 

 scopic angle, so that the apparent enlargement 

 spoken of by Mr, Shadbolt does not often exist ; 

 but if it did, as my vision (though excellent) is 

 not acute enough to discover the discrepancy, 

 I was content. I doubt not, however, under 

 such circumstances, Mr. Shadbolt would prefer 

 the deformities and errors proved to be present, 

 since he has admitted that he has such preference. 

 I have little doubt that, if desirable, the stereo- 

 scopic angle, and that of delineation, could be 

 generally made to agree. 



As to the means by which persons with two 

 eyes, or with only one eye, judge of distance, I 

 say not one word, that being irrelevant to this 

 subject. But that the axes of the eyes approxi- 

 mate when we view objects nearer and nearer 

 cannot be doubted, and I expressed no doubt ; 

 and it appears to me very probable that on this 

 fact Mr, Shadbolt founds his conclusion that 

 the cameras should radiate. This, however, ought 

 not to be done for the reasons I have assigned. 

 It will not do to treat the cameras as two eyes, 

 and make them radiate because our eyes do ; for 

 it must be remembered that light entering the 

 eyes Is received on curved — whilst when It enters 

 the cameras it falls on flat surfiices, occasioning 

 very different results. And if this be maturely 

 considered by Mr. Shadbolt, I believe his 

 opinion will be greatly altei'cd. 



As to the model-like appearance, I cannot yet 

 understand exactly why It should exist; but of 

 this I am certain, the eyes naturally do not per- 

 ceive at one view three sides of a cake (that is, 

 two sides and the front), nor two heads to a drum, 

 nor any other like absurdity ; so that I perceive 

 no analogy between this model-like appearance 

 and natural vision, as stated to be the case by Mb. 

 Shadbolt. 



To confirm, practically, the truth of my illustra- 

 tive proofs, I will send you next week some glass 

 stereographs, to be placed at Mr, Shadbolt's 

 disposal, if he likes, and you will be so kind as to 

 take charge of them, T, L, Merritt. 



Maidstone. 



3RejiTte^ to Minax ^hntxiti, 



Bc7't>fellarii (Vol. vii., p. 207.). — John Jebb 

 mentions the herefellarii as a distinct kind of 

 mongrel dependants or half-ecclesiastics of the 

 Middle Ages, dirty, shabby, 111- washed attendants, 

 whose ragged clothes were a shame to the better 

 sort of functionaries. He gave excellent and just 

 reasons for his opinion, and a very probable con- 

 struction of the sense of the word. But the 

 etymon he proposes is rather unsatisfactory. An- 

 glo- Saxonism Is a very good thing ; simplicity and 

 common sense are very good things too. May not 



