ArniL 22. 1854.] 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



379 



satisfy Mb. Hoaee that there are great difficulties 

 attending his proposition. 



No recent discoveries in the art of perspective 

 have tended to more truthful representations than 

 those produced by the recognised systems usually 

 adopted. The method of showing the internal 

 courts, &c. of large groups of buildings by isome- 

 trical perspective, although very useful for de- 

 veloping architects' and engineers' projects, is not 

 a system that will bear the test of close examin- 

 ation. Benj. Febeey. 



G. T. Hoaee is quite right in saying "that 

 every line above or below the line of the horizon, 

 though really parallel to it, apparently approaches 

 it, as it is produced to the right or left." But he 

 seems to forget that the same holds good in the 

 picture as in the original landscape, the part 

 opposite the eye being nearer to it than the 

 margin of the paper. To produce the same effect 

 with converging lines, the drawing must be made 

 to assume the form of a segment of a circle, the 

 eye being placed in the centre. 



John P. Stilwell. 



Dorking. 



I must beg leave to differ most decidedly with 

 Me. G. T. Hoaee on this point. If it is in ac- 

 cordance with the principles of perspective that, 

 supposing the eye and the picture in their true 

 positions in relation to each other and to the 

 objects represented, every line drawn from the eye 

 to any point of a real object will pass through its 

 corresponding point in the picture, then the sup- 

 posed wall will form the base of a pyramid, of 

 which the eye will be the apex, and the repre- 

 sentation of the wall in the picture a section 

 parallel to the base, and consequently mathemati- 

 cally similar to the base itself. It is perfectly 

 true, as Me. Hoaee says, " that every line above 

 or below the line of the horizon, though really 

 parallel to it, apparently approaches it, as it is pro- 

 duced to the right or left." But he forgets that 

 this fact applies to the picture as well as to the 

 object. In fact, the picture is an object, and the 

 parallel lines in it representing the wall must have 

 the same apparent tendency to one another as 

 those in the wall itself. 'A\kvs. 



Dublin. 



I am giad Mr. G. T. Hoare has called attention 

 to the defective state of the art of perspective. 

 His remarks, however, are too narrow. The fact 

 is, that any two parallel straight lines appear to 

 converge at one or both ends, and one or both lines 

 assume a curvilinear shape. For a notable ex- 

 ample, the vertical section of the Duke of York's 

 column in Waterloo Place, from all points of 

 view, appears to bulge at the point of sight, and 

 to taper upwards by a curvilinear convergence of 

 the sides. C. Mansfield Inglebt. 



LORD FAIEFAX". 



(Vol. ix., p. 10.) 



The following is all the information which I 

 have been able to collect respecting the present 

 possessor of the title of Fairfax of Cameron, in 

 answer to the third Query of W. H. M. It gives 

 me pleasure to communicate it. 



The Lords Fairfax have been for several gene- 

 rations natives of the United States. The present 

 possessor of the title is not so called, but is known 

 as Mr. Fairfax. He resides at present in Suter 

 County, California. His Christian names are 

 George William. 



The gentleman who bore the title at the com- 

 mencement of the present century, was a zealous 

 member of the republican (now called democratic) 

 party. 



The Fairfax family, at one time, owned all that 

 portion of Virginia called the Northern Neck, 

 lying between the Potomac and Rappahannock 

 rivers. 



So much for the third Query. I beg leave to 

 add a few remarks suggested by the fifth. 



The citizens of the United States are not called 

 subjects of the United States ; and for the same 

 reason that your excellent Queen is not called a 

 subject of Great Britain. Native citizens take no 

 oath of citizenship, expressly or impliedly, what- 

 ever the latter word may mean. Foreigners, who 

 become naturalised, do not renounce allegiance to 

 the sovereign of Great Britain more "pointedly" 

 than to any other sovereign. Every one re- 

 nounces his allegiance to the potentate or power 

 under whose sway he was born : the Englishman 

 to the King (or Queen) of Great Britain, the 

 Chinese to the Emperor of China, the Swiss to the 

 republic of Switzerland, and so of others. 



W. H. M. says that the existence of the peers 

 of Scotland " is a denial of the first proposition 

 in the constitution of" the United States. If 

 W. H. M. will turn to this constitution, he will 

 find that he has confounded the Declaration of 

 Independence with it. 



Foreigners, on becoming naturalised, have to 

 renounce their titles of nobility ; but I know of 

 nothing to prevent a native American citizen from 

 being called Lord, as well as Mr. or Esq. As 

 above mentioned, a Lord Fairfax was so called 

 twenty-six years after our Independence; and 

 Lord Stirling, who was a Major-General in the 

 American army of the Revolution, was always so 

 styled by his cotemporaries, and addressed by 

 them as " My Lord" and " Your Lordship." 



Some farther information upon this subject has 

 been promised to me. Uneda. 



Philadelphia. 



If W. H. M. desires particular information con- 

 cerning the Fairfax family in Virginia, it will give 



