Notes and Queries | Page 6

of ij bonetts, and for the
said hatte ... xxiijs. iiijd."
These entries are curious, as the purchase of the hat was made in a
foreign country. It was probably something that took the King's fancy,
as we can hardly suppose that his majesty had neglected to provide
himself with this necessary appendage before he left England.
Several interesting notices concerning hats, and apparel generally, may
be seen in Roger Ascham's Schoolmaster, 1570, which I do not
remember to have seen quoted; but the literature of this period abounds
in illustration of costume which has been but imperfectly gleaned.
EDWARD F. RIMBAULT.

* * * * *
EXTRACTS FROM OLD RECORDS.
If you think the insertion of scraps from the mutilated Exchequer
records useful, I shall be most happy, from time to time, to contribute a
few. The following are extracted from fragments of a book of entries,
temp. Charles I.: the book appears to have been a large folio, and each
leaf torn into at least four pieces. It is much to be regretted that the
work of selection and mutilation was not assigned to more competent
persons than the ignorant porters who I am told were entrusted with it.
ROBERT COLE.
_Fragment dated 1640._
John de Critz, Serjeant Painter, p't of 2158. 13, for a debt in the great
wardrobe 60 0 0 { 200 0 0 S'r James Palmer, Kn't, for the Tapestrie
{ 362 10 0 makers and painters at Mortlach { 300 0 0 { 262 10 0 { 300
0 0
_Fragment dated 1637._
..........hony Vandike Kn't p't of 1200_li._ for......... 300 0 0
..........le Seur Sculpter p't of 720_li._ .................Statues and Images 300
0 0
_Fragment dated 1640._
..........in satisfaction for his greate Losses by his greate and
extraordinary disbursem'ts vpon assignem'ts and other charges 4000 0 0
S'r Job Harby and S'r John Nulles, Kn'ts, for soe much paid to the King
of Denmke for redempion of a greate Jewell, and to liquidate the
accompts betwixt his Ma'ty and the said King 25000 0 0
Hubrecht le Seur in full of 340_li._ for } 2 statues in brasse, the one of
his late } 100 0 0 Ma'ty, and the other of our now } 70 0 3 Souerainge

lo: King Charles[3] }
More to him 60_li._, in p't of 120li. for a bust of brasse of his late Ma'ty,
and 40_li._ for carrying and erecting 2 figures at Winchester 100 0 0
Richard Delamair for making divers } Mathematicall Instruments, and }
100 0 0 other services } 68 0 0
[Footnote 3: Qy. the statue now at Charing Cross.]
* * * * *{318}
QUERIES.
QUERIES ON OUTLINE.
The boundary between a surface represented and its background
received two different treatments in the hands of artists who have the
highest claims on our respect. Some, following the older painters as
they were followed by Raphael and Albert Durer, bring the surface of
the figure abruptly against its background. Others, like Murillo and
Titian, melt the one into the other, so that no pencil could trace the
absolute limit of either. Curiously enough, though for very obvious
reasons, the Daguerreotype seems to favour one method, the Calotype
the other. Yet, two Calotypes, in which the outlines are quite undefined,
coalesce in the Stereoscope, giving a sharp outline; and as soon as the
mind has been thus taught to expect a relievo, either eye will see it.
But if you look at your face in the glass, you cannot at once (say at
three feet distance) see the outlines of the eye and cheek. They
disappear every where, except in the focus common to both eyes. Then
nothing is seen absolutely at rest. The act of breathing imparts
perpetual motion to the artist and the model. The aspen leaf is
trembling in the stillest air. Whatever difference of opinion may exist
as to Turner's use or abuse of his great faculties, no one will doubt that
he has never been excelled in the art of giving space and relative
distance to all parts of his canvas. Certainly no one ever carried
confusion of outline in every part not supposed to be in the focus of the

eye so far.
On the other hand, every portion of a large picture, however severe its
execution, acquires this morbid outline wherever the eye quits one
detail for another. Is, then, the law governing small and large surface
different? Do these instances imply that a definite boundary, a modern
German style, is indefensible? or only indefensible in miniature? Or, is
such a picture as the Van Eyh in the National Gallery a vindication of
the practice in small works?
I can answer that it is not; and this last question I merely ask to avoid
all answers on the