Camera Lucida (Vol. viii., p. 271.).—With my camera lucida I received a printed sheet of instructions, from which the following extract is made, in answer to Caret:
"Those who cannot sketch comfortably, without perfect distinctness of both the pencil and object, must observe, that the stem should be drawn out to the mark D, for all distant objects, and to the numbers 2, 3, 4, 5, &c. for objects that are at the distances of only 2, 3, 4, or 5 feet respectively, the stem being duly inclined according to a mark placed at the bottom; but, after a little practice, such exactness is wholly unnecessary. The farther the prism is removed from the paper, that is, the longer the stem is drawn out, the larger the objects will be represented in the drawing, and accordingly the less extensive the view.
"The nearer the prism is to the paper, the smaller will be the objects, and the more extensive the view comprised on the same piece of paper.
"If the drawing be two feet from the prism, and the paper only one foot, the copy will be half the size of the original. If the drawing be at one foot, and the paper three feet distant, the copy will be three times as large as the original: and so for all other distances."
T. B. Johnston.
Edinburgh.
"When Orpheus went down" (Vol. viii., pp. 196. 281.).—This seems to be rightly attributed to Dr. Lisle. See Dodsley's Collection of Poems, vol. vi. p. 166. (1758), where it is stated to have been imitated from the Spanish, and set to music by Dr. Hayes. It is not quite correctly given in "N. & Q."
J. Kelway.
The Arms of De Sissone (Vol. viii., p. 243.).—I beg to refer J. L. S. to Histoire Généalogique et Chronologique de la Maison Royale de France, &c., tom. viii. p. 537., Paris, 1733; and also to Livre d'Or de la Noblesse, p. 429., Paris, 1847.
Clericus (D).
Oaths of Pregnant Women (Vol. v., p. 393.).—Women of the humbler classes in the British Islands appear to have an objection, when pregnant, to take an oath. I have not observed any attempt to explain or account for this prejudice. The same objection exists among the Burmese. Indeed, pregnant women there are, by long-observed custom, absolved from taking an oath, and affirm to their depositions, "remembering their pregnant condition." The reason of this is as follows. The system of Budhism, as it prevails in the Indo-Chinese countries, consists essentially in the negation of a Divine Providence. The oath of Budhists is an imprecation of evil on the swearer,
addressed to the innate rewarding powers of nature, animate and inanimate, if the truth be not spoken. This evil may be instantaneous, as sudden death from a fit, or from a flash of lightning; the first food taken may choke the false swearer; or on his way home, a tiger by land, or an alligator by water, may seize and devour him. I have known an instance of this occur, which was spoken of by hundreds as a testimony to the truth of the system. Now it is supposed by Budhists that even an unconscious departure from truth may rouse jealous nature to award punishment. In the case of pregnant women this would involve the unborn offspring in the calamity. Hence women in that condition do not take an oath in Burmah.