The paper may be iodized by pouring over it 30 minims of the iodizing solution, and then smoothing it over with the glass rod. Care must however be taken not to wet the back of the paper, as an unevenness of depth in the negative would probably be the result.
Much more attention should be paid to the purity of the distilled water than is generally supposed. In the many processes in which distilled water is used, there is none in which attention to this is so much required as the calotype process. I mention this from having lately had some otherwise fine negatives spoiled by being covered with spots, emanating entirely from impurities in distilled water purchased by me during a late excursion into the country.
It is very requisite that the glasses of the frames should be thoroughly cleansed before the excited papers are put into them. Although not perceptible to the eye, there is often left on the glass (if this precaution is not used) a decomposing influence which afterwards shows itself by stains upon the negative.
If boiling water is carefully poured in the negative in a porcelain dish, it will frequently remove a great deal of colouring matter, thereby rendering the negative still more translucent. It is astonishing how much colouring matter a negative so treated will give out, even when to the eye it appears so clean as not to require it.
Mr. Shadbolt suggested a remedy for the disasters referred to by Dr. Diamond with regard to the gutta-percha vessels. Gutta-percha is perfectly soluble in chloroform. Mr. Shadbolt therefore showed that if the operator carries a small bottle of chloroform with him, he would be able to mend the gutta-percha at any moment in a few seconds. It was not necessary that the bottle should hold above half an ounce of chloroform.
Replies to Minor Queries.
Belike (Vol. viii., p. 358.).—The reasoning by which H. C. K. supports his conjecture that "belike" in Macbeth is formed immediately by prefixing be to a supposed verb, like, to lie, is ingenious, but far from satisfactory. In the first place, we never used to like in the sense of to lie, the nearest approach to it is to lig. And in the next place, the verb to like, to please, to feel or cause pleasure, to approve or regard with approbation, as a consequential usage (agreeably to the Dutch form of Liicken (Kilian), to assimilate), is common from our earliest writers. Instances from Robert of Gloucester, Chaucer, and North, with instances also of mislike, to displease, may be found in Richardson and others in Todd's Johnson.
Now, when we have a word well established in various usage (as like, similis), from which other usages may be easily deduced, why not adopt that word as the immediate source, rather than seek for a new one? That like, now written ly, is from lic, a corpse, i.e. an essence, has, I believe, the merit of originality; so too, his notion that corpse is an essence, and the more, as emanating from a rectory, which probably is not far removed frown a churchyard.
H. C. K., it is very likely, is right in his conception that all his three likes "have had originally one and the same source;" but he does not appear inclined to rest contented with the very sufficient one in our parent language, suggested by Richardson (in his 8vo. dictionary), the Gothic lag-yan; A.-S. lec-gan, or lic-gan, to lay or lie.