Notes and Queries, Number 182, April 23, 1853

I would suggest for the consideration of your correspondents that the throwing a shoe after a bride was a symbol of renunciation of dominion and authority over her by her father or guardian; and the receipt of the shoe by the bridegroom, even if accidental, was an omen that that authority was transferred to him.

John Thrupp.

Surbiton.

ORKNEYS IN PAWN

(Vol. vii., pp. 105. 183.)

That the Orkney and Zetland Islands were transferred by Denmark to Scotland in 1468, in pledge for payment of part of the dower of the Princess of Denmark, who was married to James III., King of Scotland, under right of redemption by Denmark, is an admitted historic fact; but it is asserted by the Scottish, and denied by the Danish historians, that Denmark renounced her right of redemption of these Islands. The question is fully discussed, with references to every work and passage treating of the matter, in the first introductory note to the edition of The General Grievances and Oppressions of the Isles of Orkney and Shetland, published at Edinburgh, 1836. And the writer of the note is led to the conclusion that there was no renunciation, and that Denmark still retains her right of redemption. Mr. Samuel Laing, in his Journal of a Residence in Norway, remarks, that the object of Torfæus' historical work, Orcades, seu Rerum Orcadensium Historiæ libri tres, compiled by the express command of Christian V., King of Denmark, was to vindicate the right of the Danish monarch to redeem the mortgage of the sovereignty of these islands; and he adds, that in 1804, Bonaparte, in a proclamation addressed to the army assembled at Boulogne for the invasion of England, descanted on the claim of Denmark to this portion of the British dominions. In a note he has the farther statement, that in 1549 an assessment for paying off the sum for which Orkney and Zetland were pledged was levied in Norway by Christian III. (Vide Laing's Norway, 1837, pp. 352, 353.) From the preceding notice, it would appear, that Denmark never renounced her right of redemption, now merely a matter of antiquarian curiosity. And it is pertinent to mention, that the connexion of Orkney and Zetland was with Norway, not Denmark. I observe in the Catalogue of MSS., in the Cottonian Library in the British Museum (Titus C. VII. art. 71. f. 134.), "Notes on King of Denmark's Demand of the Orcades, 1587-8," which may throw some light on the matter.

In the historical sketch given by Broctuna, Kenneth II., King of Scotland, is said to have taken the Orkneys from the Picts A.D. 838; and that they remained attached to that kingdom till 1099, when Donald Bain, in recompense of aid given to him by Magnus, King of Norway, gifted all the Scotch isles, including the Orkneys, to Norway. This is not what is understood to be the history of Orkney.

In the middle of the ninth century, Harold Harfager, one of the reguli of Norway, subdued the other petty rulers, and made himself king of the whole country. The defeated party fled to Orkney, and other islands of the west: whence, betaking themselves to piracy, they returned to ravage the coast of Norway. Harold pursued them to their places of refuge, and conquered and colonised Orkney about A.D. 875. The Norwegians at that time destroyed or expelled the race then inhabiting these islands. They are supposed to have been Picts, and to have received Christianity at an earlier date, but it is doubtful if there were Christians in Orkney at that period: however, Depping says expressly, that Earl Segurd, the second Norwegian earl, expelled the Christians from these isles. I may remark, that the names of places in Orkney and Zetland are Norse, and bear descriptive and applicable meanings in that tongue; but hesitate to extend these names beyond the Norwegian colonisation, and to connect them with the Picts or other earlier inhabitants. No argument can be founded on the rude and miserable subterraneous buildings called Picts' houses, which, if they ever were habitations, or anything else than places of refuge, must have belonged to a people in a very low grade of civilisation. Be this as it may, Orkney and Zetland remained under the Norwegian dominion from the time of Harold Harfager till they were transferred to Scotland by the marriage treaty in 1468, a period of about six hundred years. What cannot easily be accounted for, is the discovery of two Orkney and Zetland deeds of the beginning of the fifteenth century prior to the transfer, written not in Norse, but in the Scottish language.

R. W.

HOGARTH'S PICTURES

(Vol. vii., p. 339.)

The numerous and interesting inquiries of An Amateur respecting a catalogue of Hogarth's works has brought to my recollection the discovery of one of them, which I was so fortunate as to see in its original situation. About the year 1815 I was invited by a friend, who was an artist, to visit a small public-house in Leadenhall Street, to see a picture by Hogarth: it was "The Elephant," since, I believe, pulled down, being in a ruinous condition. In the tap-room, on the wall, almost obscured by the dirt and smoke, and grimed by the rubbing of numberless foul jackets, was an indisputable picture by the renowned Hogarth. It represented the meeting of the committee of the South Sea Company, and doubtless the figures were all portraits. It was painted in his roughest manner; but every head was stamped with that character for which he stood unrivalled. I have since heard that, when the house was pulled down, this picture was sold as one of the lots, in the sale of furniture, and bought by a dealer. It was painted on the wall, like a fresco; and how to remove it was the difficulty. On sounding the wall it was found to be lath and plaster, with timber framework (the usual style of building in the reign of Elizabeth). It was therefore determined to cut it out in substance, which was accordingly performed; and by the help of chisels, thin crowbars, and other instruments, it was safely detached. The plaster was then removed from the back down to the priming, and the picture was backed with strong canvas. It was then cleaned from all its defilement, and, on being offered for sale at a good price, was bought by a nobleman, whose name I have not heard, and is now in his collection.

I do not know whether your correspondent has heard of Hogarth's portrait of Fielding. The story, as I have heard or read it, is as follows:—Hogarth and Garrick sitting together after dinner, Hogarth was lamenting there was no portrait of Fielding, when Garrick said, "I think I can make his face."—"Pray, try my dear Davy," said the other. Garrick then made the attempt, and so well did he succeed, that Hogarth immediately caught the likeness, and exclaimed with exultation, "Now I have him: keep still, my dear Davy." To work he went with pen and ink, and the likeness was finished by their mutual recollections. This sketch has been engraved from the original drawing, and is preserved among several original drawings and prints in the illustrated copy of Lysons's Environs, vol. i. p. 544., in the King's Library, British Museum.

While I am writing about unnoticed pictures by what may be called erratic artists, I may mention that in the parlour of the "King's Head," corner of New Road and Hampstead Road, on the panel of a cupboard, is a half-length of a farmer's boy, most probably the work of G. Morland, who visited this house on his way to Hampstead, and probably paid his score by painting this picture; which is well known to have been his usual way of paying such debts.

E. G. Ballard.

Agreeably to the suggestion of An Amateur, I beg to send you the following list of pictures, from a catalogue in my possession:

Catalogue of the Pictures and Prints, the property of the late Mrs. Hogarth, deceased, sold by Mr. Greenwood, the Golden Head, Leicester Square, Saturday, April 24, 1790.

Pictures by Mr. Hogarth

41. Two portraits of Ann and Mary Hogarth.

42. A daughter of Mr. Rich the comedian, finely coloured.

43. The original portrait of Sir James Thornhill.

44. The heads of six servants of Mr. Hogarth's family.

45. His own portrait—a head.

46. A ditto—a whole-length painting.

47. A ditto, Kit Kat, with the favourite dog, exceeding fine.

48. Two portraits of Lady Thornhill and Mrs. Hogarth.

49. The first sketch of the Rake's Progress.

50. A ditto of the altar of Bristol Church.

51. The Shrimp Girl—a sketch.

52. Sigismunda.

53. A historical sketch, by Sir James Thornhill.

54. Two sketches of Lady Pembroke and Mr. John Thornhill.

55. Three old pictures.

56. The bust of Sir Isaac Newton, terra cotta.

57. Ditto of Mr. Hogarth, by Roubilliac.

58. Ditto of the favourite dog, and cast of Mr. Hogarth's hand.

W. D. Haggard.

PHANTOM BELLS AND LOST CHURCHES

(Vol. vii., pp. 128. 200. 328.)

In a little brochure entitled Christmas, its History and Antiquity, published by Slater, London, 1850, the writer says that—

"In Berkshire it is confidently asserted, that if any one watches on Christmas Eve he will hear subterranean bells; and in the mining districts the workmen declare that at this sacred season high mass is performed with the greatest solemnity on that evening in the mine which contains the most valuable lobe of ore, which is supernaturally lighted up with candles in the most brilliant manner, and the service changed by unseen choristers."—P. 46.

The poet Uhland has a beautiful poem entitled Die Verlorne Kirche. Lord Lindsay says:

"I subjoin, in illustration of the symbolism, and the peculiar emotions born of Gothic architecture, The Lost Church of the poet Uhland, founded, I apprehend, on an ancient tradition of the Sinaitic peninsula."—Sketches of Christian Art.

I give the first stanza of his translation:

"Oft in the forest far one hearsA passing sound of distant bells;Nor legends old, nor human wit,Can tell us whence the music swells.From the Lost Church 'tis thought that softFaint ringing cometh on the wind:Once many pilgrims trod the path,But no one now the way can find."

See also Das Versunkene Kloster, by the same sweet poet, commencing:

"Ein Kloster ist versunkenTief in den wilden See."

After Port Royal (in the West Indies) was submerged, at the close of the seventeenth century, sailors in those parts for many years had stories of anchoring in the chimneys and steeples, and would declare they heard the church bells ringing beneath the water, agitated by the waves or spirits of the deep.

The case of the Round Towers seen in Lough Neagh, I need not bring forward, as no sound of bells has ever been heard from them.

There is one lost church so famous as to occur to the mind of every reader, I mean that of the Ten Tribes of Israel. After the lapse of thousands of years, we have here an historical problem, which time, perhaps, will never solve. We have a less famous, but still most interesting, instance of a lost church in Greenland. Soon after the introduction of Christianity, about the year 1000, a number of churches and a monastery were erected along the east coast of Greenland, and a bishop was ordained for the spiritual guidance of the colony. For some four hundred years an intercourse was maintained between this colony and Norway and Denmark. In the year 1406 the last bishop was sent over to Greenland. Since then the colony has not been heard of. Many have been the attempts to recover this lost church of East Greenland, but hitherto in vain.

I could send you a Note on a cognate subject, but I fear it would occupy too much of your space,—that of Happy Isles, or Islands of the Blessed. The tradition respecting these happy isles is very wide-spread, and obtains amongst nearly every nation of the globe; it is, perhaps, a relic of a primeval tradition of Eden. Some have caught glimpses of these isles, and some more favoured mortals have even landed, and returned again with senses dazzled at the ravishing sights they have seen. But in every case after these rare favours, these mystic lands have remained invisible as before, and the way to them has been sought for in vain. Such are the tales told with reverent earnestness, and listened to with breathless interest, not only by the Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans of old, but by the Irishman, the Welshman, the Hindoo, and the Red Indian of to-day.

Eirionnach.

PHOTOGRAPHIC NOTES AND QUERIES

Photographic Collodion (Vol. vii., p. 314.).—In a former communication I pointed out the wide differences in the various manipulations prescribed for making the photographic gun cotton by several photographers: differences most perplexing to persons of small leisure, and who are likely to lose half the opportunities of a photographic season, whilst puzzling over these diversities of proceeding. Suffer me now to entreat some one to whom all may look up (perhaps your kind and experienced correspondent Dr. Diamond will do this service, so valuable to young photographers) to clear up the differences I will now "make a note of," viz. as to the amount of dry photographic gun cotton to be used in forming the prepared collodion.

On comparing various authors, and reducing their directions to a standard of one ounce of ether, I find the following differences: viz., Dr. Diamond (Vol. vi., p. 277.) prescribes about three grains of gun cotton; Mr. Hennah (Directions, &c., p. 5.) about seven grains; the Count de Montizon (Journ. of Phot. Soc., p. 23.) eight grains; whilst Mr. Bingham (Supplement to Phot. Manip., p. 2.) directs about thirty-four grains! in each case to a single ounce of ether.

These differences are too wide to come within even Mr. Archer's "long range," that "the proportions … must depend entirely upon the strength and the thickness required … the skill of the operator and the season of the year." (Archer's Manual, p. 17.)

Cokely.

Filtering Collodion.—Count de Montizon, in his valuable paper on the collodion process, published in the second number of the Journal of the Photographic Society, objects to filtration on the ground that the silver solution is often injured by impurities contained in the paper. It may be worth while to state, that lime, and other impurities, may be removed by soaking the filter for a day or two, before it is used, in water acidulated with nitric acid; after which it should be washed with hot water and dried.

T. D. Eaton.

Photographic Notes (Vol. vii., p. 363.).—I wish to correct an error in my communication in "N. & Q." of April 9: in speaking of "a more even film," I meant a film more evenly sensitive. I am sorry I have misled Mr. Shadbolt as to my meaning. I have very rarely any "spottings" in my pictures; but I always drop the plates once or twice into the bath, after the two minutes' immersion, to wash off any loose particles. I also drain off all I can of the nitrate of silver solution before placing the glass in the camera, and for three reasons:—1. Because it saves material; 2. Because the lower part of dark frame is kept free from liquid; 3. Because a "flowing sheet" of liquid must interfere somewhat with the passage of light to the film, and consequently with the sharpness of the picture. I think it is clear, from Mr. Shadbolt's directions to Mr. Meritt, that it is no very easy thing to cement a glass bath with marine glue.

J. L. Sisson.

Colouring Collodion Pictures (Vol. vii., p. 388.).—In your impression of April 16, there is a typographical error of some importance relative to lifting the collodion in and out of the bath: "The plate, after being plunged in, should be allowed to repose quietly from twenty to thirty minutes," &c. This should be seconds. The error arose, in all probability, from my having used the contractions 20" to 30".

It may appear somewhat droll for any one to answer a question on which he has not had experience; but I beg to offer as a suggestion to Photo, that if he wishes to use collodion pictures for the purpose of dissolving views, he should first copy them in the camera as transparent objects so as to reverse the light and shade, then varnish them with Dr. Diamond's solution of amber in chloroform, when they will bear the application of transparent colours ground in varnish, such as are used for painting magic-lantern slides.

Geo. Shadbolt.

Gutta Percha Baths (Vol. vii., p. 314.).—In "N. & Q." for March 26, I ventured to recommend to H. Henderson gutta percha, as a material for nitrate of silver baths. I did this from a knowledge that hundreds of them were in use, but chiefly because I have found them answer so well. In the same Number the Editor gives Mr. Henderson very opposite advice; and, had I seen his opinion before my notes appeared, I should certainly have kept them back. But it is, I think, a matter of some importance, especially to beginners, to have it settled, whether gutta percha has the effect of causing "unpleasant markings" in collodion pictures or not. With all due deference to the Editor's opinion, I do not believe that gutta percha baths are injurious to the finished picture. I have never any markings in my glass positives now, but what may be traced with certainty to some unevenness in the film or dirtiness on the glass. And I hope that the number of beginners who are using gutta percha baths, and who are troubled with these unpleasant markings (as all beginners are, whether they use glass or gutta percha), will not, without some very careful experiments, lay the fault upon the gutta percha. In the Number for April 2, the Editor thanks me for what he is pleased to call "the very beautiful specimen of my skill." This was a small glass positive, which I sent him in accordance with an offer of mine in a former note. Now, that was rendered sensitive in a gutta percha bath, which I have had in use for months; and I think I may appeal to the Editor as to the absence of all unpleasant markings in it. Probably it may be a good plan for those who make the baths for themselves to adopt the following simple method of cleaning them at first. Fill the bath with water, changing it every day for a week or so. Then wash it with strong nitric acid, and wash once or twice afterwards. Always keep the nitrate of silver solution in the bath, with a cover over it. Never filter, unless there is a great deal of extraneous matter at the bottom. If glass baths are used, cemented together with sealing-wax, &c., I imagine they might be as objectionable as gutta percha. The number of inquiries for a diagram of my head-rest, &c., from all parts of the kingdom—Glasgow, Paisley, Manchester, Leicester, Leeds, Newcastle, Durham, &c. &c.—proves the very large number of photographic subscribers "N. & Q." possesses. I think, therefore, it cannot but prove useful to discuss in its pages the question of the advantage or disadvantage of gutta percha.

J. L. Sisson.

Edingthorpe Rectory, North Walsham.

Replies to Minor Queries

Pilgrimages to the Holy Land (Vol. v., p. 289.).—I beg to inform W. M. R. E. (Vol. vii., p. 341.) that, though I have never met with a printed copy of the "Itinerary to the Holy Land" of Gabriele Capodilista (the Perugia edition of 1472, mentioned by Brunet, being undoubtedly a book of very great rarity, and perhaps the only one ever printed), I have in my possession a very beautiful manuscript of the work on vellum, which appears to have been presented by the author to the nuns of St. Bernardino of Padua. It is a small folio; and the first page is illuminated in a good Italian style of the fifteenth century. It is very well written in the Venetian dialect, and commences thus:

"Venerabilibus ac Devotissimis Dne Abbatissæ et Monialibus Ecclesiæ Sancti Bernardini de Padua salute in Dno].—Ritrovandomi ne li tempi in questa mia opereta descripti, Io Gabriel Capodelista Cavalier Padoano dal sumo Idio inspirato et dentro al mio cor concesso fermo proposito di vistare personalmente el Sanctissimo loco di Jerusalem," &c.

This MS., which was formerly in the library of the Abbati Canonici, I purchased, with others, at Venice in 1835.

If W. M. R. E. has any wish to see it, and will communicate such wish to me through the medium of the publisher of "N. & Q.," I shall be happy to gratify his curiosity. I do not know whether there is any MS. of Capodilista's Itinerary in the British Museum.

W. Sneyd.

"A Letter to a Convocation Man" (Vol vii., p. 358.).—The authorship of the tract concerning which Mr. Fraser inquires, is assigned to Sir Bartholomew Shower, not by the Bodleian Catalogue only, but also by Sir Walter Scott, in his edition of the Somers' Tracts (vol. ix. p. 411.), as well as by Dr. Watt, in his Bibliotheca Britannica. The only authorities for ascribing it to Dr. Binckes which I have been able to discover, are Dr. Edmund Calamy, in his Life and Times (vol. i. p. 397.), and the Rev. Thomas Lathbury, in his History of the Convocation of the Church of England (p. 283.); but neither of those authors gives the source from which his information is derived: and Mr. Lathbury, who appears perfectly unaware that the tract had ever been ascribed to Sir Bartholomew Shower, a lawyer, remarks: "It is worthy of observation that the author of the letter professes to be a lawyer, though such was not the case, Dr. Binckes being a clergyman." Dr. Kennett also, in his Ecclesiastical Synods, p. 19., referred to by Mr. Lathbury, speaking of Archbishop Wake's reply, says: "I remember one little prejudice to it, that it was wrote by a divine, whereas the argument required an able lawyer; and the very writer of the Letter to a Convocation Man suggesting himself to be of that profession, there was the greater equity, there should be the like council of one side as there had been of the other."—It has occurred to me that the mistake of assigning the tract to Dr. Binckes may possibly have been occasioned by the circumstance that another tract, with the following title, published in 1701, has the initials W. B. at the end of it,—A Letter to a Convocation Man, by a Clergyman in the Country. I have examined both tracts, and they are quite different, and leave no appearance of having proceeded from the same hand.

Tyro.

Dublin.

King Robert Bruce's Coffin-plate (Vol vii., p. 356.) was a modern forgery, but not discovered to be so, of course, until after publication of the beautiful engraving of it in the Transactions of the Scottish Society of Antiquaries, which was made at the expense of, and presented to the Society by, the barons of the Exchequer.

I believe that a notice of the forgery was published in a subsequent volume.

W. C. Trevelyan.

Eulenspiegel or Howleglas (Vol. vii., p. 357.).—The following extract from my note-book may be of use:

"The German Rogue, or the Life and Merry Adventures, Cheats, Stratagems, and Contrivances of Tiel Eulenspiegle.

'Let none Eulenspiegle's artifices blame,For Rogues of every country are the same.'

London, printed in the year MDCCIX. The only copy of this edition I ever saw was one which had formerly belonged to Ritson, and which I purchased of Thomas Rodd, but afterwards relinquished to my old friend Mr. Douce."

This copy, therefore, is no doubt now in the Bodleian. I have never heard of any other.

While on the subject of Eulenspiegel, I would call your correspondent's attention to some curious remarks on the Protestant and Romanist versions of it in the Quarterly Review, vol. xxi. p. 108.

I may also take this opportunity of informing him that a very cleverly illustrated edition of it was published by Scheible of Stuttgart in 1838, and that a passage in the Hettlingischen Sassenchronik (Caspar Abel's Sammlung, p. 185.), written in 1455, goes to prove that Dyll Ulnspiegel, as the wag is styled in the Augsburgh edition of 1540, is no imaginary personage, inasmuch as under the date of 1350 the chronicler tells of a very grievous pestilence which raged through the whole world, and that "dosulfest sterff Ulenspeygel to Möllen."

I am unable to answer the Query respecting Murner's visit to England. The most complete account of his life and writings is, I believe, that prefixed by Scheible to his edition of Murner's Narrenbeschwörung, and his satirical dissertation Ob der König von England ein Lügner sey, oder der Luther.