(Vol. vi., p. 596.; Vol. vii., pp. 12. 134. 200. 375.)

It may be worth recording, that among the MS. papers of the late James Boswell, which were I believe sold by auction by Messrs. Sotheby and Co., there was the office copy and probate of the will of Milton's widow. She was described as Elizabeth Milton of Namptwich, widow; and it was dated the 27th of August, 1727. In the will she bequeathed all her effects, after the payment of her debts, to be divided between her nieces and nephews in Namptwich; and named as her executors, Samuel Acton and John Allcock, Esqs. Probate was granted to John Allcock, October 10, 1727.

Beside this, there was a bond or acquittance, dated 1680 from Richard Mynshull, described of Wistaston in Cheshire, frame-work knitter, for 100l. received of Mrs. Elizabeth Milton in consideration of a transfer to her of a lease for lives, or ninety-nine years, of a messuage at Brindley in Cheshire, held under Sir Thomas Wilbraham.

There were also receipts or releases from Milton's three daughters, Anne Milton, Mary Milton, and Deborah Clarke (to the last of which Abraham Clarke was a party): the first two dated Feb. 22, 1674; the last, March 27 in the same year; for 100l. each, received of Elizabeth Milton their step-mother in consideration of their shares of their father's estate. The sums were, with the consent of Christopher Milton and Richard Powell, both described of the Inner Temple, to be disposed of in the purchase of rent-charges or annuities for the benefit of the said daughters.

Two of these documents appear to be now in the possession of your correspondents Mr. Marsh and Mr. Hughes; but I have met with no mention hitherto of the destination of the others.

These may seem trifling minutiÆ to notice, but nothing can fairly be considered unimportant which may lead to the elucidation of the domestic history of Milton.

S. W. Singer.

Mickleham.

---

OATHS.

(Vol. viii., p. 364.)

There can be no doubt that, as your correspondent suggests, the judicial oath was originally taken without kissing the book, but with the form of laying the right hand upon it; and, moreover that this custom is of Pagan origin. Amongst the Greeks, oaths were frequently accompanied by sacrifice; and it was the custom to lay the hands upon the victim, or upon the altar, thereby calling to witness the deity by whom the oath was sworn. So Juvenal, Sat. XIV. 218.:

Christians under the later Roman emperors adopted from the Greeks a similar ceremony. In the well-known case of Omychund v. Barker, heard in Michaelmas Term, 1744, and reported in 1 Atk. 27., the Solicitor-General quoted a passage from Selden, which gives us some information on this point:

"Mittimus hic, principibus Christianis, ut ex historiis satis obviis liquet, solennia fuisse et peculiaria juramenta, ut per vultum sancti LucÆ, per pedem Christi, per sanctum hunc vel illum, ejusmodi alia nimis crebra: Inolevit hero tandem, ut quemadmodum Pagani sacris ac mysteriis aliquo suis aut tactis aut prÆsentibus jurare solebant, ita solenniora Christianorum juramenta fierent, aut tactis sacrosanctis evangeliis, aut inspectis, aut in eorum prÆsentia manu ad pectus amota, sublata aut protensa; atque is corporaliter seu personaliter juramentum prÆstari dictum est, ut ab juramentis per epistolam, aut in scriptis solummodo prÆstitis distingueretur, inde in vulgi passim ore."

Lord Coke tells us, in the passage quoted at p. 364., that this was called the corporal oath, because the witness "toucheth with his hand some part of the Holy Scripture;" but the better opinion seems to be, that it was so called from the ancient custom of laying the hands upon the corporale, or cloth which covered the sacred elements, by which the most solemn oath was taken in Popish times.

As to the form of kissing the book, I am inclined to think that it is not of earlier date than the latter part of the sixteenth century, and that it was first prescribed as part of the ceremony of taking the oaths of allegiance and supremacy. In the Harl. Misc., vol. vi. p. 282. (edit. 1810), is an account of the trial of Margaret Fell and George Fox, for refusing to take the oath of allegiance, followed by "An Answer to Bishop Lancelot Andrewe's Sermon concerning Swearing." At p 298., Fox brings forward instances of conscientious scruples among Christians in former times, respecting the taking of oaths. He says:

"Did not the Pope, when he had got up over the churches, give forth both oath and curse, with bell, book, and candle? And was not the ceremony of his oath, to lay three fingers a-top of the book, to signify the Trinity; and two fingers under the book, to signify damnation of body and soul if they sware falsely? And was not there a great number of people that would not swear, and suffered great persecution, as read the Book of Martyrs but to Bonner's days? And it is little above an hundred years since the Protestants got up; and they gave forth the oath of allegiance, and the oath of supremacy: the one was to deny the Pope's supremacy, and the other to acknowledge the kings of England; so we need not tell to you of their form, and show you the ceremony of the oath; it saith, 'Kiss the book;' and the book saith 'Kiss the Son,' which saith 'Swear not at all.'"

Still the laying of the hand on the book seems to have been an essential form; for, during the trial, when the oath was offered to Margaret Fell, "the clerk held out the book, and bid her pull off her glove, and lay her hand on the book" (H.M., p. 285.). And directly after, when the oath had been read to Fox, the following scene is described:

"'Give him the book,' said they; and so a man that stood by him held up the book, and said, 'Lay your hand on the book.'

"Geo. Fox. 'Give me the book in my hand.' Which set them all a-gazing, and as in hope he would have sworn."

And it appears from the case of Omychund v. Barker, that, at that time, the usual form was by laying the right hand on the book, and kissing it afterwards (1 Atk. 42.). It seems not improbable that Paley's suggestion, in his Moral Philosophy, vol. i. p. 192. (10th edit.), may be correct. He says:

"The kiss seems rather an act of reverence to the contents of the book, as, in the Popish ritual, the priest kisses the gospel before he reads it, than any part of the oath."

The Query respecting the Welsh custom I must leave to those who are better informed respecting the judicial forms of that country; merely suggesting whether the practice alluded to by your correspondent may not originally have had a meaning similar to that of the three fingers on the book, and two under, as described by Fox in the passage above quoted.

Erica.

Warwick.

In the bailiwick of Guernsey the person sworn lifts his right hand, and the presiding judge, who administers the oath, says "Vous jurez par la foi et le serment que vous devez À Dieu que," &c. Oaths of office, however, are taken on the Gospels, and are read to the person swearing by the greffier, or clerk of the court. The reason of this difference may be accounted for by the fact that the official oaths, as they now exist, appear to have been drawn up about the beginning of the reign of James I., and that in all probability the form was enjoined by the superior authority of the Privy Council.

Which of the two forms was generally used before the Reformation, I have not been able to discover; but in an account of the laws, privileges, and customs of the island, taken by way of inquisition in the year 1331, but more fully completed and approved in the year 1441, it appears that the juries of the several parishes were sworn "sur Sainctes Evangiles de Dieu par eulx et par chacun d'eulx corporellement touchÉ,"—"par leurs consciences sur le peril de la dampnation de leurs ames."

I remember to have seen men from some of the Baltic ports, when told to lift their right hands to be sworn, double down the ring finger and the little finger, as is done by bishops in the Roman Catholic Church when giving the benediction.

In France the person making oath lifts his right hand. The oath is administered by the presiding judge without any reference to the Deity, but the person who swears is required to answer "Je le jure." I observed that in Britanny, when the person sworn was ignorant of the French language, the answer was "Va DouÉ," which, I believe, means in the Breton dialect, "By God."

In the Ecclesiastical Court of Guernsey I have seen the book presented to the person swearing open at one of the Gospels; but in the Royal Court the book is put into the right hand of the party making oath, shut. In either case it is required that the book should be kissed.

HonorÉ de Mareville.

Guernsey.

---

COMMINATORY INSCRIPTIONS IN BOOKS.

(Vol. viii., pp. 64. 153.)

Many inscriptions, comminatory or exhortatory, written in books and directed to readers, have been commemorated in "N. & Q." Towards the beginning of the present century, the most common epigram of the kind in the French public schools was the following elegant motto, with its accompanying illustration:

Poor Pierrot is exhibited in a state of suspension, as hanging from the inverted letter L (G), which symbolises the fatal tree. Comminatory and exhortatory cautions not to soil, spoil, or tear books and MSS. occur so frequently in the records of monastic libraries, that a whole album could easily be filled with them. The coquettish bishop, Venantius Fortunatus, has a distich on the subject. Another learned Goth, Theud-wulf, or Theodulfus, Charlemagne's Missus dominicus, recommends readers a proper ablution of their hands before turning the consecrated leaves:

Less lenient are the imprecations commemorated by Don Martenne and Wanley. The one inscribed on the blank leaf of a Sacramentary of the ninth century is to the following effect:

"Si quis eum (librum) de monasterio aliquo ingenio non redditurus, abstraxerit, cum Juda proditore, Ann et CaÏphÂ, portionem ÆternÆ damnationis accipiat. Amen! Amen! Fiat! fiat!"—Voyage LittÉraire, p. 67.

That is fierce and fiery, and in very earnest. A MS. of the Bodleian bears this other inscription, to the same import:

"Liber SanctÆ MariÆ de Ponte Roberti. Qui eum abstulerit aut vendiderit ... aut quamlibet ejus partem absciderit, sit anathema maranatha."

Canisius, in his AntiquÆ Lectiones (I. ii. p. 3. 320.), transcribes another comminatory distich, copied from a MS. of the Saint Gall library:

Such recommendations are now no longer in use, and seem rather excessive. But whoever has witnessed the extreme carelessness, not to say improbity, of some of the readers admitted into the public continental libraries, who scruple not to soil, spoil, and even purloin the most precious and rare volumes, feels easily reconciled to the anathema maranatha of the ninth and tenth centuries.

P.S.—Excuse my French-English.

PhilarÈte Chasles, MazarinÆus.

Paris, Palais de l'Institut.

---

LIVERIES WORN, AND MENIAL SERVICES PERFORMED, BY GENTLEMEN.

(Vol. vi., p. 146.)

However remarkable the conduct of the rustic esquire of Downham may appear in the present duly, when he accepted and wore the livery of his neighbour the Knight-Baronet of Houghton Tower, it was a Common practice for gentlemen of good birth and estate to accept and wear, and even to assume without solicitation, upon state occasions, the livery of an influential neighbour, friend, or relation, in testimony of respect and affection for the giver of the livery.

Thus it appears in the Diary of Nicholas Assheton that, in 1617, to the Court at Mirescough "Cooz Assheton came with his gentlemanlie servants as anie was there," and that the retinue of menial servants in attendance upon Sir Richard Houghton was graced by the presence of more than one country gentleman of good family. Baines, in his History of Lancashire, vol. ii. p. 366., also relates concerning Humphrey Chetham, that—

"In 1635 he was nominated to serve the office of sheriff of the county, and discharged the duties thereof with great honour, several gentlemen of birth and estate attending and wearing his livery at the assizes, to testify their respect and affection for him."

Evelyn, in his Diary, gives a similar account of the conduct of "divers gentlemen and persons of quality" in the counties of Surrey and Sussex:

"1634. My father was appointed sheriff for Surrey and Sussex before they were disjoyned. He had 116 servants in liverys, every one livery'd in greene sattin doublets. Divers gentlemen and persons of quality waited on him in the same garbe and habit, which at that time (when thirty or forty was the the usual retinue of the high sheriff) was esteemed a great matter. Nor was this out of the least vanity that my father exceeded (who was one of the greatest decliners of it); but because he could not refuse the civility of his friends and relations, who voluntarily came themselves, or sent in their servants."

The practice of assuming the livery of a relation or friend, and of permitting servants also to wear it, appears to have existed in England in the time of Richard II., and to have had the personal example of this sovereign to support it. He seems, however, to have thereby excited the disapprobation of many of his spiritual and temporal peers. I produce the following passage with some hesitation, because it is by no means certain that any one of the liveries thus assumed by Richard was a livery of cloth:

"17^th Richard II. A.D. 1393-4.

"Richard Count d'Arundell puis le comencement de cest present Parlement disoit au Roy, en presence des Achevesques de Canterbirs et d'Everwyk, le Duc de Gloucestr', les Evesques de Wyncestre et Saresbirs, le Count de Warrewyk et autres....

"Item q le Roy deust porter la Livere de coler le Duc de Guyene et de Lancastr'.

"Item q gentz de retenue de Roi portent mesme la Livere....

"A qei nre Sr le Roi alors respondi au dit Count ... q bientot apres la venue son dit uncle de Guyene quant il vient d'Espaign darrein en Engleterre q mesme nre Sr le Roi prist le Coler du cool mesme son uncle et mist a son cool demesne et dist q'il vorroit porter et user en signe de bon amour d'entier coer entre eux auxi come il fait les Liveres ses autres uncles.

"Item (quant au tierce) nre Sr le Roi disoit q ceo fuist de counge de luy et de sa volunte q gentz de sa retenue portent et usent mesme la Livere de Coler."—Rolls of Parliament, vol. iii. p. 313.

"Richard Earl of Arundel, after the commencement of this present parliament, said to the King in the presence of the archbishops of Canterbury and of York, the Duke of Gloucester, the Bishops of Winchester and Salisbury, the Earl of Warwick, and others....

"Item. That the King uses to wear the livery of the collar of the Duke of Guienne and of Lancaster.

"Item. That persons of the retinue of the King wear the same livery.

"To which our lord the King then answered to the said earl....

"That soon after the coming of his said uncle of Guienne, when he came from Spain last into England, that himself our lord the King took the collar from the neck of the same his uncle and put it on his own neck, and said that he vowed to wear and to use it in sign of good love of whole heart between them also, as he did the liveries of his other uncles.

"Item (as to the third). Our lord the King said that it was by leave from him, and by his wish, that persons of his retinue wear and use the same livery of the collar."

This practice of one of our early sovereigns seems to afford a precedent for the mode in which divers gentlemen and persons of quality voluntarily showed civility towards Richard Evelyn, and for that in which several gentlemen of birth and estate testified their respect and affection for Humphrey Chetham. Nicholas Assheton also appears to have the support of this royal precedent in so far as relates to his accepting and wearing the livery of a friend and neighbour; and the custom of his day evidently lends its sanction to his forming, upon a state occasion, one of the body of menial servants in attendance upon Sir Richard Houghton, when he went to meet the king.

Another passage in the Rolls of Parliament seems to afford a respectable civic precedent for the services performed by Nicholas Assheton and other liveried gentlemen, when they waited at the lords' table at Houghton Tower:

"11^th Edward III. A.D. 1337.

"A nre Seigneur le Roy et a son conseil monstre Richard de Bettoyne de Loundres, qe come au Coronement nre Seigneur le Roy q ore est il adonge Meire de Loundres fesoit l'office de Botiller ove CCC e LX vadletz vestutz d'une sute chescun portant en sa mayn un coupe blanche d'argent come autres Meirs de Loundres ountz faitz as Coronementz des crossed pgenitours nostre Seigneur le Roy dont memoire ne court pars et le fee q appendoit a cel jorne c'est asavoir un coupe d'or ove la covercle et un ewer d'or enamaille lui fust livere crossed p assent du Counte de Lancastre et d'autres Grantz qu'adonges y furent du Conseil nostre Seigneur le Roy crossed p la mayn Sire Robt de Wodehouse et ore vient en estreite as Viscountes de Londres hors del Chekker de faire lever des Biens et Chateux du dit Richard xx/iiii ixli. xiis. vid. pur le fee avant dit dont il prie qe remedie lui soit ordeyne.

"Et le Meire et Citoyens d'Oxenford ount crossed p point de chartre q'ils vendront a Londres l'Encorronement d'eyder le Meire de Loundres pur servir a la fest et toutz jours l'ount usee. Et si i plest a nre Seigneur le Roy et a son Conseil nous payerons volonters la fee issent qe nous soyons descharges de la service."—Rolls of Parliament, vol. ii. p. 96.

"To our lord the King and to his Council sheweth Richard de Bettoyne of London, that whereas at the coronation of our lord the King that now is, he their mayor of London performed the office of butler with three hundred and sixty valets clothed of one suit each, bearing in his hand a white cup of silver, as other mayors of London have done at the coronations of the progenitors of our lord the King, whereof memory runneth not, and the fee which appertained to this day's work, that is to wit, a cup of gold with the cover, and a ewer of gold enamelled, were delivered to him by assent of the Earl of Lancaster, and of the other grandees who then there were of the council of our lord the King, by the hand of Sire Robert de Wodehouse, and now comes in estreat to the viscounts of London out of the Checquer, to cause to take the goods and chattels of the said Richard, eighty-nine pounds twelve shillings and sixpence, for the fee aforesaid, whereof he prays that remedy be ordained to him.

"And the mayor and citizens of Oxford have, by point of charter, that they shall come to London to the coronation, to help the mayor of London to serve at the feast, and always have so done. And if it please our lord the King and his Council, we will pay willingly the fee, provided that we be discharged of the service."

There can be little doubt that the citizens of Oxford bore their own travelling expenses; and it seems probable that the citizens of London and Oxford bore the cost of the three hundred and sixty suits of clothes and three hundred and sixty silver cups; but this is scarcely sufficient to account for their willingness to pay a sum of money equivalent to about fifteen hundred pounds in the present day, in order to be relieved from the honourable service of waiting clothed in uniform, each with a silver cup in his hand, helping the Mayor of London to perform the office of butler at coronation feasts. However this may be, it is still somewhat remarkable that, in the seventeenth century, Nicholas Assheton of Downham, Esq., and other gentlemen of Lancashire, upon a less important occasion than a coronation feast, dressed in the livery of Sir Richard Houghton and voluntarily attended, day after day, at the lords' table at Houghton Tower, and served the lords with biscuit, wine, and Jelly.

J. Lewelyn Curtis.

---

FEMALE PARISH CLERKS.

(Vol. viii., p. 338.)

The cases of Rex v. Stubbs and Olive v. Ingram, mentioned in the following extracts from Prideaux's Guide to Churchwardens, p. 4., may be of service:

"Generally speaking, all persons inhabitants of the parish are liable to serve the office of churchwarden, and from the cases of Rex v. Stubbs (2 T.R. 395.; 1 Bott. 10.), in which it was held that a woman is not exempt from serving the office of overseer of the poor, and Olive v. Ingram (2 Str. 1114.), in which it was held that she may be a parish sexton, there may, perhaps, be some ground for contending a woman is not exempt from this duty."

Russell Gole.

A few years ago (she may still be so) there was a gentlewoman the parish clerk of some church in London; perhaps some of your readers may be able to say where: a deputy officiated, excepting occasionally. But many such instances have occurred.

In a note in Prideaux's Directions to Churchwardens (late edition), the following references are given as to the power of women to fill parochial and other such offices: Rex v. Stubbs, 2 T.R. 359.; Olive v. Ingram, 2 Strange, 1114.

H. T. Ellacombe.

Rectory, Clyst St. George.

I beg to inform Y. S. M. that when I went to reside near Lincoln in 1828, a woman was clerk to the parish of Sudbrooke, and died in that capacity a very few years after. I do not remember her name at this moment, but I could get all particulars if required on my return to Sudbrooke Holme.

Rich. Ellison.

Balmoral Hotel, Broadstairs, Kent.

I am able to mention another instance of a woman acting as parish clerk at Ickburgh, in the county of Norfolk. It is the parish to Buckenham Hall, the seat of the Honourable Francis Baring, near Thetford. A woman there has long officiated as parish clerk, and still continues acting in that capacity.

F. R.

I beg to refer Y. S. M. to the following passage Madame d'Arblay's Diary, vol. v. p. 246.:

"There was at Collumpton only a poor wretched ragged woman, a female clerk, to show us this church: she pays a man for doing the duty, while she receives the salary in right of her deceased husband!"

M. L. G.

At Misterton, near Crewkerne, in Somersetshire, Mary Mounford was clerk for more than thirty years. She gave up the office about the year 1832, and is now in Beaminster Union, just eighty-nine years old.

Herbert L. Allen.

---

POETICAL EPITHETS OF THE NIGHTINGALE.

(Vol. vii., p. 397.; Vol. viii., p. 112.)

To the one hundred and ten epithets poetically applied to the nightingale and its song, collected by Mr. Bede, permit me to add sixty-five more.

The character of the mere song alone has been described in the following terms:

W. Pinkerton.

Ham.

---

PHOTOGRAPHIC CORRESPONDENCE.

Photographic Exhibition.—We understand that the Photographic Society has made arrangements for an exhibition of photographs in the metropolis during the months of January and February next. The exhibition will not be confined to the works of native photographers, but will comprise specimens of the most eminent foreign artists, who have been specially invited to contribute. From the advances which have been made in this favourite art, even since the recent exhibition in the rooms of the Society of Arts, we may confidently anticipate that the display on the present occasion will be one of the highest interest.

How much Light is obstructed by a Lens?—Can any of your scientific correspondents furnish me with an approximation to the quantity of light which is transmitted through an ordinary double achromatic lens, say of Ross, Voightlander, or any other celebrated maker?

Lux.

Stereoscopic Articles.—I cannot agree to my opponent's assumed amendment (?) (Vol. viii., p. 419.) space, for the simple reason that it would be virtually abandoning the whole of the points in dispute between us; when farther discussion and more mature consideration, only tend to convince me more firmly of the correctness of the propositions I have advocated, viz.:

1st. That circumstances may and do arise in which a better result is obtained in producing stereographs, when the chord of the angle of generation is more or less than 2½ inches.

2nd. That the positions of the camera should not be parallel but radial.

I certainly thought that I had, as I intended, expressed the fact that I treat the cameras precisely as two eyes, and moreover I still contend that they should be so treated; my object being to present to each eye exactly such a picture and in such a direction as would be presented under certain circumstances. The plane of delineation being a flat, instead of a curved surface, has nothing whatever to do with this point, because the curves of the retinas are not portions of one curve having a common centre, but each having its own centre in the axis of the pupil. That a plane surface for receiving the image is not so good as a spherical one would be, is not disputed; but this observation applies to photographs universally, and is only put up with as the lesser of two evils. A plane surface necessarily contracts the field of view to such a space as could be cut out of the periphery of a hollow sphere, the versed sine of which bears but a small ratio to its chord.

There is another misunderstanding into which my opponent has fallen, viz. the part of the object to be delineated, which should form the centre of radiation, is not the most contiguous visible point, but the most remote principal point of observation. I perceive that this is the case from two illustrations he was kind enough to forward me, being stereographs of a T-square square, placed with the points of junction towards the observer, and the tail receding from him; and in one case the angle of the square is made the centre of radiation, and while its distance from the camera is only six feet, the points of delineation are no less than three feet apart.

To push an argument to the extreme to test its value, is quite right; but this goes far beyond the extreme, if I may be allowed such a very Hibernian expression.

No object, however minute, can be clearly seen if brought nearer to the eyes than a certain point, because it will be what is technically called out of focus. It is true that this point differs in different individuals, but the average distance of healthy vision is 10 inches. Now, adopting Mr. Merritt's own standard of 2½ inches between the eyes, it is clear that supposing the central point had been rightly selected, the distance between the cameras was only double what might have been taken an extreme distance. It is scarcely necessary to suggest what a person devoid of taste (in which category I am no doubt included) might do in producing monstrosities by adopting the radial method, as such an one is not very likely to produce good results at all.

I now address myself to another accusation. It is quite true that I am unacquainted with the scholastic dogmas of perspective, but equally true that I am familiar with the facts thereof, as any one must be who has studied optical and geometrical science generally; and while I concur in the propositions as enunciated for a one-eyed picture, I by no means agree to the assumption that the "vanishing points," in the two stereographs taken radially with the necessary precautions, "would be so far apart, that they could not in the stereoscope flow into one;" on the contrary, direct experiment shows me, what reason also suggests, that they do flow into one as completely as in nature when viewed by both eyes.

I put the proposition thus, because I do not hesitate to avow that in nature, as interpreted by binocular vision, these points do not absolutely, but only approximately, flow into one; otherwise one eye would be as effective as two.

I have not the smallest objection to my views being considered "false to art," as, alas! her fidelity to nature is by no means beyond suspicion.

Lastly, as to the model-like appearance of stereographs taken at a large angle, for the fact I need only refer the objector to most of the beautiful foreign views now so abundant in our opticians' shops: for the reason, is it not palpable that increasing the width of the eyes is analogous to decreasing the size of the object? and if naturally we cannot "perceive at one view three sides of a cake, two heads of a drum, nor any other like absurdity," it is only because we do not use objects sufficiently small to permit us to do so. Even while I am writing this, I have before me a small rectangular inkholder about 1¼ inches square, and distant from my eyes about one foot, in which the very absurd phenomenon complained of does exist, the front, top, and both sides being perfectly visible at once: and being one of those obstinate fellows who will persist in judging personally from experience if possible, I fear I shall be found incorrigible on the points on which your correspondent has so kindly endeavoured to enlighten me.

Geo. Shadbolt.

To introduce Clouds (Vol. viii., p. 451.) as desired by your correspondent S., the negative must be treated in the sky by solution of cyanide of potassium laid on in the form desired with a camel's hair pencil. This discharges a portion of the reduced silver, and allows the light to penetrate; but great care is required to stop the action by well washing in water before the process has gone too far. White clouds are produced by painting them in with a black pigment mixed in size.

Geo. Shadbolt.

---

Replies to Minor Queries.

Death of Edward II. (Vol. viii., p. 387.).—P. C. S. S. has noticed with considerable surprise the very strange assertion of Mr. C.M. Ingleby with reference to the murder of Edward II. at Berkeley Castle, viz. that "Echard and Rapin are silent, both as to the event and the locality." If Mr. Ingleby will again refer to Echard (vol. i. p. 341., edit. 1718) and to Rapin (vol. iii. p. 147., edit. 1749), he will perceive that the two historians record "both the event and the locality."

Mr. Ingleby did not perhaps consider that the transaction in question took place during the reign of Edward III.; and is, therefore, not to be sought for at the close of that of Edward II. (where probably Mr. C.M. Ingleby looked for it), but among the occurrences in the time of Edward III. Mr. C.M. Ingleby will assuredly find it there, not only in Echard and Rapin, but in every other History of England since the date of the "event."

P. C. S. S.

Luther no Iconoclast (Vol. viii., p. 335.).—An occasional contributor wishes the Editor to note down this Query. What could have led your correspondent J.G. Fitch to use so peculiarly inappropriate a synonym for Martin Luther as "the great Iconoclast?" Has he any historical evidence for Luther's breaking a single image?

It is not to defend Luther, but to point out a defect in his teaching, as it is regarded by the adherents of other Protestant churches, that Dr. Maclaine has said, in his note on Book IV. ch. i. § 18. of Mosheim:

"It is evident, from several passages in the writings of Luther, that he was by no means averse to the use of images, but that, on the contrary, he looked upon them as adapted to excite and animate the devotion of the people."

Mosheim, and Merle D'AubignÉ, and probably any other historian of the Reformation in Germany, may be cited as witnesses for the notorious fact, that Carlstadt excited the citizens of Wittemberg to break the images in their churches when Luther was concealed in the Castle of Wartburg, and that he rebuked and checked these proceedings on his return. See Mosheim, as cited before, or D'AubignÉ, book IX. ch. vii. and viii.

H. W.

Rev. Urban Vigors (Vol. viii., p. 340.).—My great-great-grandmother was a sister of Bishop Vigors, who was consecrated to the see of Leighlin and Ferns, March 8, 1690. He, I know, was a near relative of the Rev. Urban Vigors. An Urban Vigors of Ballycormack, co. Wexford, also married my great-great-aunt, a Miss Thomas, sister of Vigors Thomas, Esq., of Limerick. I should, equally with your correspondent Y.S.M., wish to know any particulars of the "Vigors" family; and should be delighted to enter into correspondence with him.

W. Sloane Sloane-Evans.

Cornworthy Vicarage, Totnes.

Portrait of Baretti (Vol. VIII., p. 411.).—In reply to Mr. G.R. Corner's Query regarding Sir Joshua Reynolds' picture of Baretti, I can give him the information he requires.

This very interesting portrait is now at my brother's, Holland House, Kensington.

My late father, Lord Holland, had a pretty picture of the late Lord Hertford's mother (I believe), or some near relation of his. Not being connected with that family, my father offered it to Lord Hertford, leaving it to his lordship to give him such picture as he might choose in exchange. Some time afterwards this portrait of Baretti was sent, and was much prized and admired. It represents Baretti reading a small book, which he holds close to his face with both hands; he is in a white coat, and the whole carries with it a certainty of resemblance. This occurred about twenty-five years ago. Perhaps it may interest your readers to learn that our distinguished painter, Watts, painted for my brother, Lord Holland, a portrait of another distinguished Italian, Mr. Panizzi, and pendant to the former. He is represented leaning forward and writing, and the likeness is very striking.

C. Fox.

Addison Road.

Passage in Sophocles.—In Vol. viii., p. 73., appears an article by Mr. Buckton, in which he quotes the following conclusion of a passage in Sophocles:

"?t? f???a?

Te?? ??e? p??? ?ta??

???sse?? d' ?????st?? ?????? ??t?? ?ta?."