9 th S. I. MAR. 19, '98.]
NOTES AND QUERIES.
233
and therefore proves nothing except the us*
of the writings of Dionysius. There is, in
addition, a mistaken assertion as to the
occurrence of the Dionysian era in a sixth
century Vatican MS.* Jan truly remarkec
that there is hardly any certain seventh
century instance of the use of the Dionysiar
era in public documents. t The progress
since his time of the scientific study o
diplomas, &c., justifies us in converting his
" vix ullum satis certum exernplum " into an
unqualified negative. This learned scholar
moreover, remarked that although it was
credible that the era might have been usec
for these purposes soon after the death oJ
Beda, the " restorer " (instaurator) of its use
or even in his lifetime, there was, neverthe-
less, no instance of such use before the year
742. | With regard to the English instance
of that year, the council of Clovesho, he
suggests that the era was then used through
the influence of Cuthbert, Beda's disciple.
Concerning the Frankish councils of 742 and
744, in which the era is used, he concludes
that the custom of distinguishing public
documents by the era of the Incarnation was
introduced into Germany and Gaul by the
Englishman Boniface, who presided over both
these councils.
I do not think it is necessary to say more after this, especially when taken in connexion with the testimony of the distinguished scholars cited in my former letter, in support of the proposition that the occurrence of the era of the Incarnation in an English (or, I may add, in any West-European) charter or legal document prior to Beda's time is con- clusive evidence that such charter or docu- ment is a forgery. Lest any one should think with MR. ANSCOMBE that in ascribing to Beda the credit of bringing this era into use for legal and historical purposes, and in holding that his works superseded those of Dionysius, I am bringing forward a new and baseless theory of my own, I may refer to the very strong expressions to this effect of Krusch|| and Riihl.lT Considerations of space preclude me from dwelling upon the weighty evidence in support of the second proposition, and from dealing with some other points in MR. ANSCOMBE'S letter. But enough has been
use at Rome soon after the middle of the sixth century therefore falls to the ground.
' uhl > P- 199, note 1. The reference to Pertz's Archiv, x. 280, is wrong, t ^Historia ^Erse Christiana?,' p. 28.
. /&., p. 35. This was also Mabillon's view.
said. I must withdraw from this fruitless
controversy. W. H. STEVENSON.
PAINTING FROM THE NUDE (9 th S. i. 88). CANONICUS will find this question discussed in a thoroughly fair manner in the late P. G. Hamerton's 'Man in Art,' chaps, v. and vi.; also in Robert Browning's 'With Francis Furini,' in ' Parleyings with Certain People.' Regarding his query in reference to Fra Angelico, on p. 282 of vol. ii. of Woltmann and Woermann's ' History of Painting ' it is stated, "It is clear that the monk [Fra Angelico] had no opportunity for studying the nude, and that even his female figures are worked from male models." R. H. M.
In the 'Life of William Etty, R.A.,' by Alexander Gilchrist, 1855, this subject is dis- cussed, on the whole in a temperate spirit ; and some of the arguments for painting from the unclothed human form will be found in the concluding chapter of the book (vol. ii. chap. xxx. pp. 312-333). Etty's own views may be gathered to some extent from his short autobiographical sketch published in the Art Journal, vol. xi., 1849.
E. G. CLAYTON. Richmond, Surrey.
Upon this subject (and I presume refer- ences only are wanted) see what is said in 'Struggles for Life,' chap, x., by W. Knighton, LL.D. EDWARD H. MARSHALL, M.A.
Hastings.
Ruskin has some remarks on this subject n 'The Eagle's Nest,' chap, viii., "The Rela- tion to Art of the Sciences of Organic Form."
BEN. WALKER. Langstone, Erdington.
MADAM BLAIZE (9 th S. i. 47, 90). This picture was painted by Abraham Solomon, ind appeared in the Royal Academy Exhibi- ion of 1858, numbered in the Catalogue 454. Mr. Ruskin, speaking of this artist's picture f the year 1855, said, " It seems better than most of its class in the rooms." And the ritic of the Illustrated London News, concur- ing with your correspondent in his estimate )f the quality of the painter of 'Madam Slaize,' says, " Mr. Solomon is a young, con- cientious, and promising painter, of whom England has every reason to be proud." He lied comparatively young, but not before he ad earned a reputation, and the critic of the ame paper, in referring to the picture No. 62 in the year 1857, declares that it is gener- lly considered, if not the greatest, certainly me of the greatest works of the year. I emember seeing it in all its glory " on the
