S own standard of 2-1/2 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.
{477}

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 1-1/4 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