ish it.]

On May 5, 1686, M. Claude's account of the Massacre of St. Bartholomew was
burnt in the Old Exchange, "so mighty a power and ascendant here had the
French ambassador." (Evelyn's _Memoirs_.)

JOHN S. BURN.

* * * * *

PHOTOGRAPHIC CORRESPONDENCE.

_Stereoscopic Angles._--As I presume that MR. T. L. MERRITT is, like
myself, only desirous of arriving at truth, I beg to offer the following
reply to his last communication (Vol. viii., pp. 275-6.), in which he
misinterprets some observations of mine upon the subject in question.

With regard to the distance quoted by me of 2-1/4 inches, I look upon it as
the same thing as intended by MR. MERRITT--that is, the _average_ distance
between the centres of the eyes; and it amounts simply to a difference of
_opinion_ between us; but, so far as that point is concerned, I am quite
ready to adopt 2-1/2 inches as a standard, although I believe that the former
is nearer the truth: however, I require more than a mere _assertion_ that
"the _only_ correct space for the cameras to be apart is 2-1/2 inches, and
this under every circumstance, and that _any_ departure from this _must_
produce error." I quote verbatim, having merely Italicised three words to
point my meaning more clearly. An object being 5 feet distant, and another
at 10 feet from the observer, a line between the eyes will subtend a very
_much larger_ angle in the former than in the latter instance: hence the
inclination of the axes of the eyes is the chief criterion by which people
with the usual complement of those useful organs judge of proximity: but if
half a dozen houses are made to appear as if 10 or 12 feet distant (by
means of the increase of the angle between the points of formation of the
pictures), while the angle which each picture subtends is relatively small;
it is clear that both eyes will see in relief at a short distance half a
dozen houses in a space not large enough for a single brick of one of them,
and, _consequently_, _the view will appear as if taken from a model_. MR.
MERRITT will object that an erroneous effect is produced; if he will refer
to my statement (Vol. viii., p. 228.), he will find that it is precisely
what I admitted; and he appears to have overlooked the _proviso_ attached
to my next observation (judging by his comment thereon), so I shall make no
farther remark upon that point, beyond inquiring why the defect he is
content to put up with is call