The Art of Deception Irakly Shanidze

Visit to download the full and correct content document:

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-art-of-deception-irakly-shanidze/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

The Art of Deception A Daughter of Sherlock Holmes

Mystery 1st Edition Leonard Goldberg

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-art-of-deception-a-daughter-
of-sherlock-holmes-mystery-1st-edition-leonard-goldberg/

Sinful Deception Deception 2 1st Edition Linda S.

Prather

https://textbookfull.com/product/sinful-deception-
deception-2-1st-edition-linda-s-prather/

Tragic Deception Deception 1 1st Edition Linda S.

Prather

https://textbookfull.com/product/tragic-deception-
deception-1-1st-edition-linda-s-prather/

Hide and Seek The Psychology of Self Deception Neel

Burton

https://textbookfull.com/product/hide-and-seek-the-psychology-of-
self-deception-neel-burton/
Consumed by Deception Deception Trilogy 3 1st Edition
Rina Kent Kent Rina

https://textbookfull.com/product/consumed-by-deception-deception-
trilogy-3-1st-edition-rina-kent-kent-rina/

Age of Deception (The Firebird Chronicles #2) 1st

Edition T.A. White [White

https://textbookfull.com/product/age-of-deception-the-firebird-
chronicles-2-1st-edition-t-a-white-white/

The Language of Deception: Weaponizing Next Generation

AI 1st Edition Justin Hutchens

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-language-of-deception-
weaponizing-next-generation-ai-1st-edition-justin-hutchens/

The Alpha Deception (The Blaine McCracken Novels) 1st

Edition Land

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-alpha-deception-the-blaine-
mccracken-novels-1st-edition-land/

The Evolution of Animal Communication: Reliability and

Deception in Signaling Systems 2nd Edition Searcy

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-evolution-of-animal-
communication-reliability-and-deception-in-signaling-systems-2nd-
edition-searcy/
photography
The Art of Deception
How to Reveal the Truth by Deceiving the Eye

Irakly shanidze Russian Photographer of the Year

Dedication
I dedicate this book to my wonderful wife, Irina, for she keeps supporting me in utter defiance of common sense.

Copyright © 2016 by Irakly Shanidze.

All rights reserved.
All photographs by the author unless otherwise noted.

Published by:
Amherst Media, Inc., PO Box 538, Buffalo, NY 14213
www.AmherstMedia.com

Publisher: Craig Alesse

Senior Editor/Production Manager: Michelle Perkins
Editors: Barbara A. Lynch-Johnt, Beth Alesse
Acquisitions Editor: Harvey Goldstein
Associate Publisher: Kate Neaverth
Editorial Assistance from: Carey A. Miller, John S. Loder, Roy Bakos
Business Manager: Adam Richards

ISBN-13: 978-1-68203-092-9
Library of Congress Control Number: 2016938269
Printed in The United States of America.
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic,
mechanical, photocopied, recorded or otherwise, without prior written consent from the publisher.

Notice of Disclaimer: The information contained in this book is based on the author’s experience and opinions.
The author and publisher will not be held liable for the use or misuse of the information in this book.

www.facebook.com/AmherstMediaInc
www.youtube.com/AmherstMedia
www.twitter.com/AmherstMedia

Author a Book with Amherst Media!

Are you an accomplished photographer with devoted fans? Consider authoring a book with us and share
your quality images and wisdom with your fans. It's a great way to build your business and brand through a
high-quality, full-color printed book sold worldwide. Our experienced team makes it easy and rewarding for
each book sold—no cost to you. E-mail submissions@amherstmedia.com today!
 Contents
“I always tell the truth. Even when I lie.”—Al Pacino

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. The Art of

Photographic Deception . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
1. Fundamentals of Black Belt in Photography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
Photographic Deception . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Face to Face . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
What Is a Good Photograph? . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Better than Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
What Makes a Photograph Happen? . . . . . . . 10 Staged Photography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
What Makes a Photograph Visible? Through the Fly’s Eyes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
Part 1: The Properties of Light . . . . . . . . . 15
What Makes a Photograph Visible? 4. Photographing the Inanimate . . . . . 120
Part 2: When the Sun Is Not Enough . . . . 25 Spontaneous Versus Meditative . . . . . . . . . . 120
What Holds a Photograph Together? . . . . . . 35 Playing on the Heart Strings . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
What Puts the Third Dimension Getting Close . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
into a Photograph? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Deception Is a Constant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
What Is Next? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Final Thoughts
2. Tools of Ethical Decption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
Photographic Deception . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Knowing Your Mark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
Bending the Truth: Why and How . . . . . . . . 61
Withholding Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Taking Things Out of Context . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Smoke Screening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Getting Emotional . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
Telling the Truth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
The Road Ahead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

contents 3
Introduction
Photography is a lie. Just think about it: pho-
tographers create two-dimensional images that
sometimes even lack color and then expect ev-
eryone to believe that this is how it was in real
life. What is truly amazing is that people fall for
it way too easily—almost like they want to be
deceived. It gets better: people still believe that
you can only photograph what is really there.
I am certainly not going to deny that a lens
(an optical system that focuses light inside a
camera) sees only what is in front of it, but be-
lieve me, it is not that simple. It just so happens
a photographer and a camera standing between
the viewer and reality inevitably distort the lat-
ter, intentionally or not. The individual features
of a photographer’s perception and the techni-
cal limitations of his equipment make him do
things that may eventually make a picture look
4 photography: Art of deception
very different from how a viewer would see the
same scene with their naked eye. Consequently,
a photographer who is not aware of his inher-
ent ability to distort reality can ruin a picture
simply by taking it. Fortunately, there are some
good photographers out there. Who are these
people? They are the ones who understand the
aforementioned constraints and use them de-
liberately to adjust the level of truthfulness in
their pictures.
Additional Materials
Additional materials to accompany this book are available for
download at www.AmherstMedia.com/downloads. Password:
deception.
 1
Fundamentals of Photographic Deception
“Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.”—Albert Einstein
Photography is an illusion. It all starts with a
notion: if it is in a photo, then it must have ap-
peared before the lens at some point. Howev-
er, in a photo nothing is what it seems. Things
may look closer or farther apart than they are
Figure 1.1
in real life. They can be invisible despite being
there. Something that is not there we seem to
notice—an object on a flat piece of paper some-
times looks so real that we are compelled to
look behind it. And the list goes on.
fundamentals of photographic deception 5
Figure 1.2
What Is a Good Photograph?
Once, I was sitting in a coffee shop and wait-
ing for an art director who was late for our
meeting. I had absolutely nothing to do but to
eavesdrop on a conversation at the table next to
mine. The dialogue unfolded as follows:
Person 1: Do you remember a picture that I
showed to you last week?
Person 2: Vaguely. What was it?
Person 1: Well, it was a blond woman—a real
babe. And some trees.
Person 2: Nope, doesn’t ring a bell.
Person 1: But . . . She looks you straight in the
eye and she’s got this dress. You know.
Person 2: Oh, yeah, yeah, that’s right! Listen,
Stanley Cup is on tonight. Wanna come
over to watch it on my 55-inch flat screen?
Person 1: Cool, I’m in! The girl’s hand is on
her lap. It is just so beautiful, right?
6 photography: Art of deception
Person 2: Yeah, it’s cool. Just wanted to ask
you, who is she? Quite a looker! Hook me
up, will you?
Person 1: She is just a coworker. Married and
all.
Person 2: Why the hell did you take her pic-
ture then?
Person 1: What do you mean “why”? It is just
so beautiful!
Person 2: How often do you have to change
the front tires on your RX7?
This surreal conversation carried on for anoth-
er good twenty minutes or so, until they had
paid up and left. Listening to them was quite
a treat; one kept trying to talk about a photo,
which he apparently had taken recently, while
the other was desperately trying to steer the
conversation in some other direction. It was
really farcical and, at the same time, very seri-
ous from a photographer’s point of view. Why
didn’t the guy want to talk about the picture? I
mentally placed myself in his shoes. Obviously,
he wasn’t interested. That could be caused by
two things: either photography just wasn’t his
thing or this particular portrait of a blonde in
a dress in front of trees did not tickle his fancy.
I am inclined to accept the second version as
the more plausible explanation. In my experi-
ence, a good photo can touch anyone with eye-
sight, no matter how well he or she can handle
a camera.
What Is “Good”?
So why do we all seem to agree that one photo
is great while another one is a flop? What are
the criteria that allow us make a clear distinction
between the two—and why is this important at
all? Essentially, all of these questions boil down
to a fundamental one: “How can photographers
succeed in achieving global recognition?” This
perspective leaves no doubt about the relevance
of the question, does it?
Of course, when it comes to photography,
not everyone sets out to conquer the world,
but I have yet to meet a person who wouldn’t
like his pictures to be seen with genuine interest
rather than polite impatience.
What is good? And how is it ​different from
bad? There is no universal recipe for “quality” in
art. Moreover, due to the subjectivity of human
perception, it is impossible to create a master-
piece that will be equally (or even just a little bit)
liked by everyone. However, a knowledge of the
basic criteria of visual harmony really helps you
to consistently take pictures that will not make
spectators drowsy.
Artistic and Technical Criteria
Back in my high school, our compositions were
graded with two marks on a scale from 1 to 5.
The first mark was for content, while the sec-
ond one was for presentation. It always hurt
so badly to get something like 5/2—or, even
worse, the other way around! Well, it just so
happens that the grading system in photogra-
phy is practically the same: a combination of
artistic and technical criteria.
At this point, you may be thinking, “Shouldn’t
we be talking about lies?” Well, yes! Essentially, a
basic activity of almost any photographer is ma-
nipulating the viewer’s consciousness for money
or for personal enjoyment. In order to do that,
there is a set of technical and creative means that
must be used flawlessly to make the lies convinc-
ing and thrilling (figure 1.2).
Technical Excellence
The fundamental criterion of technical excel-
lence is whether the photo conforms to your
intentions of how it should look. Besides that,
particular criteria such as sharpness, exposure,
composition, cleanness (absence of sensor
dust, spots, scratches, etc.), and print quality
(smoothness of color gradations, color fidelity)
will help you determine objectively whether or
not there is something wrong with the techni-
cal quality of your picture.
In most cases the image (or at least its se-
mantically important part) must be sharp, ex-
hibit a full tonal range, and present a balanced
composition. On the other hand, motion blur
can make the picture more dynamic and a pre-
dominance of black or white tones will greatly
affect its emotional content. A slight misbal-
ance in the composition or clashing colors may
change the perception of the image immense-
ly. It is important that any “wrongness” lend
a predictable contribution to the viewer’s per-
ception of the picture. (It is useful to remem-
ber, by the way, that statements like “this is my
artistic vision” are just excuses that do not make
the photograph even a bit finer. If you want to
fundamentals of photographic deception 7
use some unconventional approach, you better
be sure that it is indeed going to improve your
picture.)
For a photographer, presenting a picture
before an audience is not unlike an oral exam
in which technical excellence is expected. It is
there, before the audience, that it becomes clear
that a good photo is something more than, say,
a telephone directory that is beautifully laid out
and printed without a single spelling mistake.
If your picture causes responses like “great
composition” or “wonderful lens choice,” you
may safely consider it a failure. Techniques are
just means of expressing an artistic vision in
visual metaphors. In this sense, photography
is amazingly similar to poetry; the ability to
rhyme words is clearly not sufficient to be able
to come up with something like this (from The
First Kiss of Love by Lord Byron):
Figure 1.3
8 photography: Art of deception
When age chills the blood, when our plea-
sures are past—​
For years fleet away with the wings of the
dove—​
The dearest remembrance will still be the last,​
Our sweetest memorial, the first kiss of love.​
This example is rather straightforward, so al-
low me to make a parallel with Pushkin’s Eu-
gene Onegin. Despite radically different for-
mats and styles, both pieces are similar in the
sense that no one in their right mind would say
that Byron was actually talking about the
temperature-lowering effects of age—or that
Pushkin’s story was about one good-for-noth-
ing playboy shooting another because of a
neighbor’s daughter. Good poetry is never lit-
eral; neither is good photography.
 A good portrait is never about a sharp
and well-exposed image of a face, beautifully
turned into the light. A spectator will see not
just an eye color and the shape of a nose, but
also the character—wisdom, vanity, kindness,
deceit, bravery, femininity, etc. A good land-
scape is not about a sunset, or a waterfall, or
a mossy stone. It is about freshness, heat, sol-
itude, danger, tranquility, etc. A good report-
age image goes beyond a picture of an airborne
paratrooper shooting his machine gun left and
right. It shows heroism, or perhaps the sense-
lessness of violence.
Subjective Perception
You must have figured out by now that a work
of art should operate by abstract, universal
ideas. Why? Because your spectator is a lazy,
self-centered egoist who is not going to spend
a second on something that he or she does not
find interesting and easy to comprehend. Peo-
ple are interested in things that are significant
to them, and it is universal ideas that have an
ability to feel important on a personal level. It
means that a viewer is more interested in what
a picture conveys than what it shows.
Some readers may object along these lines:
“How can they not like this sunset? I took a
picture of it eight years ago, and every time I
see it, the memories take my breath away! How
come they do not feel it? It’s probably because
I’m so refined and sensitive and they are just
pachydermatous ignoramuses!” Astonishingly,
such an opinion may be completely legitimate.
The photographer, indeed, feels more while
looking at this picture than anyone else does.
This is not, however, because the viewers are
insensitive morons.
The secret here lies in what is called sub-
jective perception. The photographer feels
passionate about this picture because it is an
anchor to events that happened when it was
taken: the wash of waves, the smell of seaweed,
a sense of freedom because it was the first day
of a vacation, etc. The rest of humankind, how-
ever, was not there when the photo was taken;
for them, it is just a sunset. That is where an
advantage of working with general concepts
really shows. They are universally understood
and cannot be argued. Therefore, anyone can
identify with them.
Looking at a picture that conveys a fun-
damental concept—for instance, joy, sorrow,
boredom, or suspense—the viewer feels an
emotion caused by perceiving it, just like any-
body else seeing the image would (figure 1.3).
That, of course, includes the person who took
the picture. As a result, the viewer ends up
sharing an experience with the photographer.
It is the sharing that makes them both feel like
they have something in common.
This is always a powerful and profoundly
pleasant experience. You must have had it more
than once—that moment when you suddenly
felt a tide of sympathy for a total stranger who
happened to share your musical preferences or
who liked the same movie. When it comes to
showing a photo to someone, this effect may
be even more powerful because a viewer real-
izes that only you and nobody else could give
him this pleasure, since you took the picture.
You, in turn, are grateful to the viewer for his
sincere appreciation of your work of art.
The emotion caused by such an experience
is profound enough to become associated with
the image, which makes it stick in the viewer’s
memory for a long time. Emotions are easy to
memorize, as they are registered directly; infor-
mation is perceived only by association.
“That’s easy for you to say!” you may just
have thought. “All you have to do is shoot con-
ceptual visual metaphors and you are fated for
success. But how do I do it?” Just calm down—
there is a book full of tricks ahead!
fundamentals of photographic deception 9

What Makes a Photograph Happen?
Attention! The next few sections touch on as-
pects of photography extensively described
by many authors, starting with Ansel Adams
himself. Hence, they will be discussed only in
terms of their relevance to the deceptive nature
of photography. The remainder of the chapter
(even though it also addresses topics extensive-
ly covered elsewhere), is more detailed due to
its importance to the subject.
Figure 1.5
10 photography: Art of deception
Figure
1.4
Exposure
One principle of the photographic process is
simple: an image is projected through the lens
onto an image-recording medium of some sort.
For more than a century, photographers relied
upon the light-sensitive properties of silver ha-
lides to record images. These days, most camer-
as are digital (i.e., instead of capturing images on
film covered with tiny grains of silver bromide
 Figure 1.6

entrapped in gelatin emulsion, they employ a ground in figure 1.6 were created by panning
high-tech, light-sensitive device called a sensor). the camera in sync with the figures’ motion at
In order for all the colors and tones to look real, 1/ second.
10

a precise quantity of light must reach the sensor. Balancing a studio (or other) flash with
Now, what happens if the quantity of light ambient light is another way to create an illu-
reaching the sensor is less than is needed for sion (figure 1.7). It is the fact that shutter speed
things to look real? The picture looks darker, has no effect on flash exposure that enables
and the colors are more saturated (figures 1.5, tricks of this nature. The flash duration is usual-
1.6). If more light gets to the sensor than was ly shorter than 1/600 second, and its light output
required, the picture will look brighter and the can be adjusted. Hence, its exposure depends
colors will lose their punch. So, things will not only on the flash power output and camera
look the way they really are. (By the way, do lens aperture. The amount of ambient light, on
you remember the definition of a lie?)
Basic camera settings essentially determine Figure 1.7
how the resulting image looks. By altering the
aperture and shutter speed, we can change real-
ity and create the illusion of motion (figures 1.5,
1.6)—or the lack of it. Responding to changes
in the exposure settings, unnecessary details in
the background can disappear into a complete
blur (figures 1.7, 1.8), or hide in a shadow, or
blend with a highlight.
Understanding how these changes in cam-
era settings affect the image is what makes our
results predictable—at least to a degree. For
instance, the sinusoidal pattern in figure 1.5 is
the result of a wavy camera movement com-
bined with a 1/4 second shutter speed. The fair-
ly well-defined silhouettes on a blurred back-
fundamentals of photographic deception 11
the other hand, is a function of aperture and output as desired enables full control over how
shutter speed. So, setting the exposure for the bright the foreground and background will
ambient light first and then adjusting the flash come out.

Figure 1.8

12 photography: Art of deception

 I can foresee a question here. If the flash is
bright enough to expose the foreground per-
fectly, how come it is not flooding the whole
room? Well, this is because (excluding cases of
some exotic light sources like lasers and par-
abolic projectors) light always dissipates in a
predictable fashion in accordance with the In-
verse Square Law, which we will discuss in
more detail in the next section of the book.
Without digging into scary formulas, the prac-
tical implications of the law are very simple: if
the distance from the flash to a person in the
foreground is 1.2–1.5m (4–5 feet), the light
spill from the flash on the background, which
is 4.5–6m (15–20 feet) away, will be negligible
for all practical purposes.
Figure 1.9
Depth of Field slower aperture values produce a similar effect.
Understanding how the depth of field can be In fact, I set the aperture to f/8 to take a pic-
influenced by aperture change opens up anoth- ture of a hummingbird (figure 1.9) to prevent
er possibility for getting predictable amounts important details from falling out of focus.
of detail. Fast lenses can blur a background so Wide-angle lenses, on the other hand, eas-
much that it becomes practically indecipher- ily register everything from just a few feet away
able—especially with long optics (figure 1.8). to infinity once you stop down just a few clicks.
When shooting small objects, however, even Due to the inherently large depth of field, even

Figure 1.10

fundamentals of photographic deception 13

at full aperture, throwing the background out results, but most of the time these are not the
of focus is not possible. Figure 1.9 is an example results that you want.
of a photo shot with a Leica Summilux 35mm Controlling your camera manually is no
f/1.4 at full aperture. This is precisely the rea- more difficult than throwing yourself into the
son why 28mm and 35mm lenses are so popu- deceptive embrace of automation—it just re-
lar among street photographers and landscape quires a different (and now mostly forgotten)
shooters. Just set it to the hyperfocal distance set of skills that your grandparents used every
and fire away (figure 1.11). time they took a picture of your mom or dad
Understanding how camera settings can playing in a sandbox.
transform reality is not enough to actually do
it. To present the world the way you want peo-
ple to see it, you need to be in control of your
gear. Today’s cameras are marvels of artificial
intelligence that is eager to take over. With a
level of patience that only machines possess, to-
day’s cameras wait for you to set them in a fully
(or semi-) automatic mode and render yourself
a prisoner of technology. Autofocus and auto-
exposure are capable of producing excellent

Figure 1.11
14 photography: Art of deception
Figure 1.12
What Makes a Photograph Visible?
It is not my intention to scare you with for-
mulas describing what light does while passing
through a medium or between two mediums
with different refraction coefficients. You can
scare yourself plenty by reading textbooks on
the fundamentals of optics. Instead, with min-
imal use of clever vocabulary, I will try to help
you grasp the principles of how light works and
learn how to control it so you can predict and
reproduce the results that you want.
Direction
First, let us try to figure out what light can do
for you. Start by standing in a room lit just by
one window and observing what the light does.
It does not take much to notice that it comes
in a particular direction, which is evident from
the highlights on and shadows cast by the ob-
jects standing in its way (figure 1.12). It is dra-
Part 1: The Properties of Light
matically different from what happens outside
on an overcast day when it is nearly impossi-
ble to figure out where the light comes from,
because there are no shadows. Since it is the
shadows that make things visible in a photo (in
a black & white one, anyway), understanding
where the shadows come from is crucial to a
photographer’s ability to create the illusion of
depth.
Now, imagine yourself outside under the
overcast sky. Unlike on a cloudless day, when
the sun acts like a point light source, the light
on people’s faces is now soft and virtually shad-
owless. This is because we have a gargantuan
translucent screen shading the sun. This, along
with softening the sunlight, also diffuses it in
all directions. Hence, no shadows. In a studio,
a similar kind of lighting can be created by put-
ting a large diffusion screen between a studio
fundamentals of photographic deception 15

Figure 1.13
Figure 1.14
flash and an object. However, unless the screen
is exceptionally large, the light will still be di-
rectional since it will be coming from one side.
Diffusion can also be achieved by reflecting
light from a rough surface. On a macro level,
light acts like a stream of particles. Therefore
its angle of incidence equals the angle of reflec-
tion—much like when a ball bounces off the
edge of a pool table. On an uneven surface, the
angle of incidence is different at every point.
This causes light to reflect in many different di-
rections, scattering the rays for a diffused look.
If you use a mirror, on the other hand, the re-
16 photography: Art of deception
flection will be predictable and can be
precisely controlled. Photographers
extensively use reflection from rough
and mirrored surfaces to redirect
and/or diminish the light to create
an illusion of depth.
The Quality of Light
Another interesting phenomenon
you might notice is that different
light sources produce different shad-
ows from the same object. The small-
er the light source is, the “harder” the
shadows are (note the shadows cast
by the saltshakers and a sugar bowl in
figure 1.13) and vice versa (figure 1.14).
The property of light that is respon-
sible for the width of the shadow edge
transfer is called the quality of light.
Light that produces a wide transition
(a gradual shadow edge) is called soft;
light that produces a narrow transi-
tion (a sharp shadow edge) is called
hard. It is the relative size of the light
source, not its actual dimensions, that
determines this. For instance, the sun
is larger than any other light source in
the solar system, but direct sunlight
produces notoriously hard shadows. A
3x4-foot window facing north, on the
other hand, looks like nothing compared to the
sun—but it is large relative to a subject’s face, so
the light from it is extremely soft.
The Quantity of Light
One of the most frequent misconceptions per-
petuated among beginning photographers is
that “softness” is the same thing as “low con-
trast,” while “hard” means “contrasty.” The
only thing that can be farther from the truth
is that hard physical labor makes you smarter.
The problem stems from a lack of understand-
ing of the difference between the quality and
the quantity of light. The difference is inde-
cently simple. The quantity of light is a value
that depends on the intensity of the light, its
angle of incidence, and the distance from the
light source to the subject. The quality of light,
as we have just established, is simply the width
of its shadow edge. Contrast is essentially a dif-
ference between the darkest and the brightest
part of a scene; this pertains to the quantity of
the light, rather than its quality.
Even though light quality and light quan-
tity are two different animals, there is some
relationship between them. In the case of a
Figure 1.15
fundamentals of photographic deception 17
Figure 1.16
single light source, the contrast does change
with the distance between the subject and the
light source. The shorter the distance is, the
softer the shadows and the higher the contrast
will be. This is easily explained by the Inverse
Square Law, which I still remember from my
high school physics course.
According to this law, in the case of a point
light source (an imaginary light source with
a diameter equal to zero), the intensity of the
incident light is inversely proportionate to a
square of a distance between the source and
an object of incidence. For a real light source,
with finite dimensions, the relationship is not
that simple—but for describing behavior of
contrast, an approximation holds for distances
five and more times larger than the diameter of
the light source.
Since the quantity of the light decreases
as the square of a distance, it does not take a
genius to realize that increasing the distance,
18 photography: Art of deception
say twofold, will result in a fourfold (2 stop,
in photographic parlance) drop in the quantity
of the light. This phenomenon has a potential
for deception that cannot be underestimated.
By positioning our lights and subjects in the
frame in a certain way, we can create an illusion
of twilight or even complete darkness in bright
daylight. All it takes is overpowering the sun,
which is much easier than you might think (fig-
ure 1.15). Conversely, you can use daylight to
overpower fairly bright indoor lighting, which
is easier yet (figure 1.16).
Now, if this is really the case, how come the
results are so dramatically different from what
the naked eye sees? This is because the eye is
not a camera; it is a scanning device. A scene
that we see is a composite created by our brain
from several images of possibly very different
brightness. While scanning through the scene,
the iris in our eyes constantly oscillates, open-
ing up for darker parts of the scene and con-
stricting for brighter ones. The camera’s sensor
does not behave this way, so it has a substan-
tially lower dynamic range than the eye. This
results in much higher contrast in our photos
than what we see in real life.
Modern cameras and computer software can
imitate the behavior of the human eye by tak-
ing several identical images at different expo-
sure levels and then creating a composite with
the highlights, midtones, and shadows derived
from different images. This technique is called
HDR (high dynamic range) photography; it is
widely described elsewhere.
Hence, thoughtful use of the Inverse Square
Law opens up great possibilities for manipulat-
ing reality: to hide or highlight certain details of
the image, to balance composition, and even to
create a certain mood.
Now, let us get back to our experiment.
Simultaneously with contrast rising, the light
Figure 1.17
source (provided it is not a point light source,
which is always a point no matter how close it
is) becomes larger compared to the face and,
therefore, the light becomes softer—which is
great for portraits (figure 1.14). If we reverse the
situation, the contrast drops while the lighting
becomes harder. Indeed, if you illuminate an el-
ephant with a pocket flashlight from 6 meters
(20 feet), he will cast a hard shadow; if you use
the same flashlight on a pea from 5cm (2 inch-
es), the shadow will be soft. Just try it tonight
when it gets dark: one pea and one elephant is
all you need if you already have the flashlight.
Manipulating the tonal contrast of a scene is
possible in two ways (I am not discussing how to
do it in postproduction; this book is about how
to lie with your camera, not with Adobe Photo-
shop). The first way is one we have already dis-
cussed: the contrast can be adjusted by changing
the distance between the light source and the
fundamentals of photographic deception 19
 subject, according to Inverse Square Law. The
problem with this approach is that it also alters
the quality of the light, making it sometimes im-
possible to attain the desired light quality at a
given contrast (like try to change the distance
between you and the sun).
The second way is much more convenient,
although it requires some additional equipment.
The fundamental idea behind it is that you can
have more than just one light source illuminat-
ing your subject. In this instance, the contrast
depends on not only the distance between the
light source and the subject but also the light
ratio (the power outputs) of the light sources. It
sounds complicated until you realize that, now,
Figure 1.18
20 photography: Art of deception
the distances between the lights and the subject
can be kept constant. This method is discussed
in-depth in numerous textbooks on studio pho-
tography.
Light Color
Color is another property of light that makes
our life more exciting, yet harder to manage
with a camera. However, there is a bright side:
colors can be manipulated. Since colors have
their own semantic content and a great power
over human emotions, altering the color con-
tent and balance in an image can distort and
even completely change the look, feel, and very
meaning of a scene. For instance, the warm
yellow-orange tint seen in figure 1.17
creates a false sensation of opulence,
which (under closer examination) is
not there. Figure 1.18 feels cold yet
light—all because it is predominant-
ly white. Figure 1.19, on the other
hand, is “dark” in every sense of the
word. We will discuss the deceptive
properties of color in much greater
detail in chapter 2.
Color contrast is easy to com-
prehend: it is said to be higher when
the colors are farther apart on the
spectrum scale (the one that normal
people call a rainbow). Imagine an
Figure 1.19
orange on a blue background, and
you are instantly an expert in what
high color contrast is.
Tonal contrast is pretty much
a no-brainer when you do not take
colors into account. You should nev-
er assume that a picture with high
color contrast will be just as con-
trasty when the colors are taken out.
Just compare figures 1.20a and 1.20b.
Figure 1.20a Figure 1.20b
Mixing the Light scene will still require something more than
We have not yet considered the importance electric light. Fortunately, it is always there,
of where light comes from. I took this liber- and it is always available; it is called ambient
ty because everything discussed so far applied light. It is the lighting that is provided by all
equally to both natural and artificial sources. In the light sources around you—windows, store-
real life, however, we need to make decisions fronts, street lights, the moon and stars, and
about whether to use natural or artificial light the city lights reflecting from the clouds. Usu-
and about how these should be mixed. ally it is rather dim, but it is still substantial
Studio lighting is easy in the sense that you enough to be useful. All you have to do is mix
have enough power to create any lighting pat- it properly with flashes and it can look like you
tern that comes to mind. Once you step out- had a Hollywood-scale budget at your disposal.
side, things get complicated. What if you want For example, figure 1.21 was shot on New Year’s
to light the universe? Well, maybe not the night in 2008. It would have been pitch-dark, if
whole universe, but a substantial part of it—for it were not for the street lights and Christmas
example, a city block? In that case, no matter decorations. The lighting on the couple of crim-
how much lighting equipment you bring, the inals that killed Santa was provided by a porta-
fundamentals of photographic deception 21
ble flash generator (Broncolor Mobilite) with a
3x3-foot softbox. Clearly, this would not have
been enough to illuminate the background and
snowflakes 10 feet above people’s heads.
The solution was simple: at ISO 800, the
flash was set to f/4, but the exposure was mea-
sured for the available light, which yielded a
shutter speed of 1 second. The flash duration
was approximately 1/600 second, which left the
shutter open for almost 1 second after the flash
did its thing. The models were instructed to
stand still and it was dark enough for any slight
movements not to be registered on their faces
22 photography: Art of deception
and hands, which was critical. The slight ghost-
ing next to the woman’s left leg is not a problem,
as it adds a sense of movement and plays well
with light streaks in the background that look
like motion blur. In fact, if you underexpose the
ambient light for more than 1 stop (which was
the case here), ghosting is so inconsequential
that you can shoot without a tripod at shutter
speeds that usually require steady support.
Underexposing the ambient light is a tech-
nique that can also be used in bright sunlight.
This is especially useful when you are shoot-
ing indoors and still want some detail in the
Figure 1.21

windows. Figure 1.22 is an example of this tech-
nique. The flash was set to f/11. For this ap-
erture, the window light required an exposure
of 1/60 second—but the picture was shot at 1/200
second. That is why the windows look so blue.
What you may mistake for window light on the
dancers’ faces was, in fact, a softbox standing
next to the window. Without the flash, the win-
dows would be overexposed.
Flash usually has a color temperature that
is different from the ambient light; that can be
used to your advantage. In figure 1.23, the differ-
ence in the color of the flash and the incandes-
cent lights on the building creates the illusion
that the man is bathed in moonlight.
A super important thing to remember is
that cameras with focal plane shutters are lim-
ited by their flash-sync speed. This can be a
real problem when shooting in bright daylight
with wide apertures. An attempt to use a faster
shutter speed severely darkens the lower part of
Figure 1.22
a horizontal image in cameras with a vertical-
ly traveling focal plane shutter. Older cameras
with horizontal focal plane shutters (like film
Leica M cameras) will darken the right side of
the picture. This usually just ruins a photo. The
problem is easy to tackle by using a polarizer
or a neutral density filter. Figure 1.24 was lit
with a flash head powered by a portable gen-
erator. The trick here was that the flash over-
powered the sun. It effectively made the flash
the main light while the sun provided fill. To
accomplish that at 2pm on a bright sunny day,
I had to shield the model from the sun with a
diffusion screen. Keeping the aperture at f/4
was important to prevent the background from
being too sharp. Even at ISO 100, the ambient
light was bright enough to command a shut-
ter speed of 1/400 second. A polarizing filter re-
duced amount of light passing through the lens
by 2 stops, which was enough, as the flash-sync
speed for the camera used was 1/90 second.
fundamentals of photographic deception 23
Figure 1.23

24 photography: Art of deception

Figure 1.24
Figure 1.25
What Makes a Photograph Visible?
Part 2: When the Sun Is Not Enough
To understand artificial light, let’s talk about
something that you already know: natural light.
Natural light photos (figure 1.25) look beau-
tiful for many reasons. The one that I consider
the most important is that natural light does
not detract from the subject matter. We are
accustomed to it, not even acknowledging its
presence. As a result, it is the subject, not the
lighting, that becomes the main feature of the
photograph. A comment like, “My god—your
lighting is so beautiful!” usually means that the
lighting is better than everything else in the
picture. Hence, the photographer failed to de-
liver. When light is used correctly, the chance
that it will compete with the story is next to
none.
With some skill, natural light is relatively
easy to deal with. It does not annoy models
with constant flashing or unbearable heat, and
it does not cost you anything. So, what’s the
catch? There is always a catch, right? Of course
there is.
As beautiful and stunning as natural light is
in photography, it has some major limitations.
Availability is the first on the charts. When time
is important, like in commercial photography,
it is a great hindrance to rely exclusively on
natural light. In such intense fields as fashion
and advertising, photographers are always on
a deadline. They just cannot afford to wait for
suitable lighting conditions—or even for the
sun to rise. Indeed, the problem is so serious
that photographers have invented all kinds of
devices to help them fake natural light one way
or another.
To a lesser (yet equally annoying) extent,
natural light is often unpredictable. In the
morning and evening, its color temperature
fundamentals of photographic deception 25

Figure 1.26
changes dramatically within just an hour. Also,
natural light is not easily controllable. You can-
not really order the sky to become a couple of
stops brighter, nor can you tilt the sky down
just a few degrees.
Not knowing when will be a good time to
shoot, dealing with low light levels that make
camera and subject motion problematic, ad-
dressing color temperature changes, and fac-
ing difficulties with adjusting, shaping, and di-
recting the light—there are a whole myriad of
frustrations that can make artificial light a more
appealing choice.
Faking Nature
While shooting in a studio, most of our time
and energy is spent on attempts to imitate nat-
ural light. This is all because a truly great studio
portrait looks like it was shot not in a studio but,
rather, in the most natural and favorable con-
ditions. Obviously, there are exceptions when
a photographer is going for a strikingly unnat-
ural look, but it is the understanding of how
to make things look natural that gives you an
26 photography: Art of deception
ability to twist light in any way you want—not
the other way around. This being the case, the
goal of this section is to demonstrate that you
can create such natural looking and favorable
conditions using any type of lighting. Here, we
will focus on studio techniques, as the studio
affords the ultimate control over pretty much
everything, lighting included.
Figure 1.25 is a natural light photo. It was
shot with no light modifiers of any kind, not
even a reflector, and sustained no retouching.
This is an example of a rare instance of ideal
lighting conditions. Note the large catchlights,
very soft shadows, gentle contouring high-
lights, and well-defined hair and fabric texture.
Of course, to capitalize on the ideal conditions,
you must first notice them. Learning in a stu-
dio is one thing that helps make us aware of
lighting in any situation.
As discussed in a previous section, light can
be described by its quality (the width of the
shadow-edge transfer) and quantity (the tonal-
ity and contrast). These properties of light de-
termine how and where a certain type of light-
ing can be used.
Carefully studying natural light pictures and
paying attention to subtle details helps us un-
derstand what to demand from a picture taken
with artificial light. The key is to set the lights
in such a fashion that the result does not defy
logic. For instance, when you are trying to im-
itate window light, round catchlights will tell a
viewer that either the window is round or you
have no idea what you are doing. If something
looks strange, or even is just a bit too notice-
able, change it or downplay it.
Playing with Quality
The term “quality of light” is somewhat mis-
leading; it may lead you to believe that light
can be good or bad. In reality, it is a bit more
complicated (or maybe just plain simple, de-
pending on how you look at it). “Good” light-
ing is the lighting that best suits your purpose.
If it requires hard light, then hard is good and
soft is bad. The opposite is also true.
Hard lighting feels edgy, energetic, and even
dangerous. Soft light is the opposite; an interior
lit by soft light makes a soothing background
for a portrait, for instance. Consequently, if you
need a tender portrait of a child, hard light will
probably be a really bad choice. For a photo of a
femme fatale, soft light will not work well.
Soft light is often difficult to imitate because
it requires very large light sources or reflecting
surfaces, and yet the benefits that it provides
are impossible to discount. If you need to make
a subject look younger, a piece of jewelry look
more expensive—or, for that matter, if you
want anything or anybody to look more rich
and delicate—this is your solution (look back
to figure 1.14). In other words, soft light is a
great tool of deception.
However, as great as soft light is for this
purpose, it cannot be used indiscriminately.
Like everything in photography, softness has
its price; for the tender subtlety of tonal grada-
tions, you have to shell out. Soft lighting dulls
out colors, smooths textures, and makes hair
look flatter. However, even though soft light is
not always suitable, a common trend in main-
stream studio portraiture is to use it anyway.
Photographers tend to shy away from hard
light because it is much more difficult to use.
In fact, the frequent improper use of hard light
is what has led to a widespread (yet erroneous)
opinion that hard light is bad for portraiture—
especially for female subjects.
Indeed, hard light mercilessly emphasizes
every blemish and results in nose and cheek
highlights that remind us why skin powder was
invented. Soft light, on the other hand, is much
more forgiving. The highlights are translucent
and make the skin seem to glow from within.
Dealing with soft light is simpler, mainly be-
cause it does not restrict the subject to a single
pose. Also, soft light often makes retouching
unnecessary—even if the skin is far from per-
fect. Smaller skin imperfections just disappear
as the colors become less saturated and the
gradations grow more subtle. For instance, it
can make freckles almost invisible (figure 1.26).
Even larger wrinkles and scars become subdued
in soft light. This is invaluable in commercial
portraiture, especially in actor and model head-
shots where makeup is not allowed.
This is how it works: our ability to perceive
depth on a flat medium depends entirely on
translating the shadows and highlights into
contours and textures. A wrinkle or pore will
cast a much harder shadow when lit by a hard
light source than by a soft one. Hard shadows,
with their sharply recognizable shapes, more
readily emphasize the subject’s textures and
contours—and the longer, deeper shadows cast
by oblique hard light makes them appear even
more exaggerated.
Is it “bad,” though? It all depends upon your
interpretation of how flaws contribute to the
personality of the portrayal. A pimple is always
offensive; it is unpleasant to look at. However,
wrinkles, scars, and skin pores are not always
that bad; they may suit the mood of a photo-
graph, convey personality, emphasize a facial
expression, etc. Under different circumstances,
however, the same wrinkles may ruin the pic-
ture. It is all a matter of how it fits your vision.
Your choice of lighting should be based on
suitability, not on what is easy to use. Hard light
is not always bad and it doesn’t have to be avoid-
ed. It works very well in pictures where darker
tones are predominant. It is ideal for dramatic
effects and vintage looks (figure 1.27). It can
emphasize the texture of the fabric in a model’s
dress, give hair more volume, and (when used
skillfully) even change the shape of a face.
fundamentals of photographic deception 27
 28 photography: Art of deception
Figure 1.27
Figure 1.28
In full-length portraits (and especially envi-
ronmental portraits) you often have the free-
dom to combine soft and hard light in one
image. For instance, in fashion photography, a
model’s face can be lit by a softbox while her
dress is lit by a bare bulb or snoot to reveal its
texture. Figure 1.27 shows exactly the opposite
technique. The subject’s face and upraised arm
were lit by a collimator unit, which is a very
hard light source. Her lower arm was lit by a
softbox.
Another way to combine light sources is to
use different light qualities on a person and on
an interior. Figure 1.28 shows just that. The fac-
es of the female models were lit by flashes with
honeycombs (modifiers that produce a light
spot with soft edges). Another flash in a large
softbox was used on their bodies. An incandes-
cent wall light fixture provided hard light. This
intentional combination of flash and continu-
ous light sources resulted in an effect that is
quite puzzling for the uninitiated.
fundamentals of photographic deception 29
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
this birth with more or less indifference; and their papers contain no
unseemly jests on the occasion.
But the especial attention of Londoners was drawn
BOLINGBROK
to more important matters. Whigs and Jacobites E.
looked with equal interest to the attempt made by
Bolingbroke’s friends to enable him to succeed to his father’s
estates, notwithstanding the Act of Attainder to the contrary. Leave to
bring in a Bill, with this object, was asked by Lord Finch, in the
Commons, on April 20th, with the sanction of king and Government,
whom Bolingbroke had petitioned to that effect. Lord Finch explained
that the petitioner had been pardoned by his Majesty, for past
treason, but that even a royal pardon could not ride over an Act of
Attainder, to the extent asked, without an Act of Parliament. The
petitioner had fully acknowledged his former great guilt, and had
made promises, on which his Majesty confidently relied, of inviolable
fidelity for the future. Walpole gave great significance to the words
uttered in support by saying, ‘He has sufficiently atoned for all past
offences,’ Then Mr. Methuen, of Corsham, Wilts, sprang to his feet to
oppose the motion and denounce the traitor. He did both in the most
violent and unmeasured terms. He lost no point that could tell
against Bolingbroke, from the earliest moment of his political career,
—ever hostile to true English interests,—down to that of the asking
leave to absolve the traitor from the too mild penalties with which his
treason had been visited. No expiation could atone for his crimes;
and no trust could be placed in his promises. One
BOLINGBROKE’
after the other, Lord William Paulet, Arthur Onslow, S
Sir Thomas Pengelly and Gybbon smote Bolingbroke ADVERSARIES
with phrases that bruised his reputation like blows on .
mail from battle-axes. They were all, however, surpassed in
fierceness and argument by Serjeant Miller, who branded
Bolingbroke as a traitor to the king, country, and Government; a
villain who, if favoured as he now asked to be, would betray again
those whom he had betrayed before, if he found advantage in doing
so. Serjeant Miller said that he loved the king, country, and ministry
more than he loved himself, and that he hated their enemies more
than they did. To loosen the restraints on Bolingbroke was only to
facilitate his evil action, and so forth; but Jacobite Dr. Freind, who
had tasted of the Tower, extolled the royal clemency to Bolingbroke;
and the assurance of Walpole that the traitor had rendered services
which expiated all by-gone treason, weighed with the House, and the
condoning Bill was ultimately passed, by 231 to 113.
Public interest in London was only diverted for a IN THE LORDS
moment from this measure, by the debate in the HOUSE.
House of Lords, in May, on another Bill (from the
Commons) for disarming the Highlanders in Scotland, which ended
in the Bill being carried. Five peers signed a protest against it, partly
on the ground that England now enjoyed ‘that invaluable blessing—a
perfect calm and tranquility;’ that the Highlanders now manifested no
spirit of disorder, and that it became all good patriots ‘to endeavour
rather to keep them quiet than to make them so.’ The comment in all
the Whig circles of London, as they heard of the protest, was to
repeat the names of those who subscribed it,—Wharton, Scarsdale,
Lichfield, Gower, and Orrery. Of them, the first was almost openly in
the Chevalier’s service, and the other four were thorough Jacobites.
But the interest in this Bill was as nothing compared with that
renewed by the Bill (sent up by the Commons) which passed the
House of Lords on May 24th, 1725, by 75 to 25, for restoring
Bolingbroke to his estates. The protest against the Act was signed
by the Earls of Coventry and Bristol, Lords Clinton, Onslow, and
Lechmere. The articles of the protest are among the most explicit
and interesting ever issued from Westminster, and are to this
effect:—
The lands and other property of ‘the late Viscount Bolingbroke’
had been forfeited through his treason, and had been appropriated
to public uses; therefore, say the protesters, it would be ‘unjust to all
the subjects of this kingdom, who have borne many heavy taxes,
occasioned, as we believe, in great measure by the treasons
committed, and the rebellion which was encouraged by this person,
to take from the public the benefit of his forfeiture.’
The treasons he committed were of ‘the most flagrant and
dangerous nature’; they were ‘fully confessed by his flight from the
justice of Parliament,’ and they were indisputably demonstrated by
his new treasons when he ‘entered publicly into the counsels and
services of the Pretender, who was then fomenting and carrying on a
rebellion within these kingdoms for the dethroning his Majesty, into
which Rebellion many subjects of his Majesty, Peers and
Commoners, were drawn, as we believe, by the example or
influence of the late Lord Bolingbroke, and for which reason many
Peers and Commoners have since been attainted and some of them
executed, and their estates become forfeited by their attainder.’
What services Bolingbroke had rendered to King
DENUNCIATIO
George, since he was a convicted traitor, were not NS AGAINST
publicly known, but might justly be suspected. He had HIM.
never expressed the slightest sorrow for his treason;
and there was no security that he might not again betray the king
and country, for no trust could be placed in his most solemn
assurances. Supposing recent services justified reward, it was not
such reward as could not be recalled. Persons who had rendered
similar services had been rendered dependent on the Government
for the continuance of those rewards, and so it should be, they
thought, with Bolingbroke. The five peers further remarked that no
pardon under the Great Seal could be pleadable to an impeachment
by the Commons, and that Bolingbroke had, in fact, no right or title to
the benefits conferred upon him by a Bill which restored him to his
estates, in spite of the Act of the Attainder.
The public discussed these matters with interest, and (except a
few Jacobites) thought nothing of plots and pretenders. Atterbury,
however, was as pertinaciously working as ever, to see his royal
master James crowned at Westminster. In one of the numerous
letters written by him this year, Atterbury suggests that James shall
express his hopes to the Duke of Bourbon, then at the head of the
French Government, that if the juncture at present will not suffer the
Duke to do anything directly for him, yet at least that he will not so far
act against him as to endeavour to draw off others from their designs
and determinations to serve him—the King, James III.
Among the ex-bishop’s friends in London was the AN EPIGRAM.
Rev. Samuel Wesley, brother of John. The Tory
journal ‘Mist’ had said of him that Mr. Wesley had refused to write
against Pope, on the ground that ‘his best patron’ had a friendship
for the poet. Thence arose the question, ‘Who was his best
patron?’—a question which was answered by an epigrammatist (by
some said to be Pope himself), who suggested that the patron was
either the exiled Jacobite Bishop Atterbury, or the Earl of Oxford.
Wesley, if Wesley ’tis they mean,
They say, on Pope would fall,
Would his best patron let his pen
Discharge his inward gall.

What patron this, a doubt must be,

Which none but you can clear,
Or Father Francis ’cross the sea,
Or else Earl Edward here.

That both were good, must be confest,

And much to both he owes,
But, which to him will be the best,
The Lord (of Oxford) knows.

The king’s speech, on opening Parliament in FRESH

January, 1726, rather alarmed London (which was not INTRIGUES.
dreaming of the recurrence of evil times), by assurances that in the
City and in foreign Courts intrigues were then being carried on for
the restoration of the Pretender. Additions to the armed force of the
realm were suggested as advisable. A suspicion arose that in this
suggestion the defence of Hanover from foreign aggression was
more thought of than that of England against the Chevalier.
However, the Lords dutifully replied:—
‘We can easily believe that at such a juncture, new schemes and
solicitations are daily making by the most profligate and abandoned
of them (the enemies of the King and Government), to revive the
expiring cause of the Pretender; all which, we assure ourselves, can
have no other effect than to hasten his destruction and the utter ruin
of all his perjured adherents.’
 The majority in the Commons, not a whit less loyal, used similar
terms, adding, with reference to traitors near St. James’s: ‘The
disaffected and discontented here have not been less industrious by
false rumours and suggestions to fill the minds of the people with
groundless fears and alarms, in order to affect the public credit, and,
by distressing the government, give encouragement to the enemies
of our peace.’
Two notable persons who had, in their several POLITICAL
ways, filled people’s minds with groundless alarms, WRITERS.
now departed from the stage. On the 5th of February
died the two great antagonistic news-writers of this Jacobite time,
Abel Roper and George Ridpath. The former was proprietor of the
Tory ‘Post Boy,’ the latter of the Hanoverian ‘Flying Post.’ Pope has
pilloried both in the ‘Dunciad,’ and pelted them in an
uncomplimentary note. The Whig ‘Weekly Journal’ says of Abel, that
in the ‘Post Boy’ ‘he has left such abundant testimony for his zeal for
indefeasible hereditary right, for monarchy, passive obedience, the
Church, the Queen (Anne), and the Doctor (Sacheverel), that the
public can be no strangers to his principles either in Church or State.’
Ridpath, Ropers celebrated antagonist, had been obliged in 1711 to
fly to Holland, to escape the consequences of too severely criticising
Queen Anne’s Ministry. In exile, he wrote ‘Parliamentary Right
Maintained, or the Hanover Succession Justified.’ This was by way
of a confuting reply to the ultra-Jacobite work of Dr. Bedford,
‘Hereditary Right to the Crown of England Asserted.’ Ridpath, having
rendered such good service to the Hanoverian succession, appeared
in London, as soon as George I., himself. He got his reward in an
appointment to be one of the Patentees for serving the
Commissioners of the Customs, &c., in Scotland, with stationery
wares!
Ridpath was a sort of public intelligencer for the WHARTON,
Government. It is certain, on the other hand, that not BOASTING.
only was the Government in London well served by its
own private ‘Intelligencers,’ but it was equally well supplied through
the folly of Jacobites at foreign Courts. From the British Envoys at
those Courts dispatches reached London, which must have often
made the Cockpit, where the Cabinet Ministers met, joyous with
laughter. For example, towards the end of April, Mr. Robinson was
reading a dispatch from Mr. Keen at Madrid, in which the latter
described the Duke of Wharton, then a fugitive, as ever drinking and
smoking; and such a talker in his cups as to betray himself, his party,
and their designs. Keen encouraged his visits, accordingly. ‘The
evening he was with me he declared himself the Pretender’s Prime
Minister and Duke of Wharton and Northumberland. “Hitherto,” says
he, “my master’s interest has been managed by the Duchess of
Perth and three or four other old women who meet under the portal
of St. Germain. He wanted a Whig and a brick van to put them in the
right train, and I am the man. You may now look upon me, Sir Philip
Wharton, Knight of the Garter, and Sir Robert Walpole, Knight of the
Bath, running a course, and by God, he shall be hard pressed. He
bought my family pictures, but they will not be long in his possession;
that account is still open. Neither he nor King George shall be six
months at ease, as long as I have the honour to serve in the employ
I am in.”’ Wharton was telling the Duke of Ormond that his master
did not love foxhunting, but that he promised to go to Newmarket. To
which Ormond answered, ‘he saw no great probability of it on a
sudden, but wished the Pretender might take such care of his affairs
that he might be able to keep his word.’
Besides a promise to go to Newmarket, there was shadowed forth
another promise this year, which was, or was not, performed some
years later—namely, the adhesion of the young Chevalier to the
Church of England. Probably from some follower of the exiled family
was derived the information, which was put into London newspaper
shape in the following fashion, in the month of July:—
‘The Chevalier de St. George is at his last shifts, for now his
eldest son is to be brought up in the principles of the Church of
England. To give a proof of which he was led by a Church at Rome,
by his Governor, who did not stop to let him kneel at the singing of
the Ave Maria.’
This announcement was made, probably, to keep PRINCE
warm the interest of the Protestant Jacobites in the WILLIAM,
Stuart family generally, and in the person, particularly, DUKE OF
of young Charles Edward, of whose equivocal CUMBERLAND
Church-of-Englandism this is the equally equivocal .
foreshadowing. In the same month, little Prince William was created
Duke of Cumberland. The future victor at Culloden was then five
years old. The papers had at an earlier period recorded how he had
cut his teeth, and they now noticed his military tendencies; but none
could have conjectured how these were to be applied subsequently,
at Fontenoy, and on the field near Inverness.
A simple act on the part of his father, the Prince of Wales, awoke
the Whig muse to sing his praise. During the absence of the king in
Hanover, a fire broke out in Spring Gardens. The Prince went down
to it, not as an idle spectator in the way of the firemen, but as an
active helper. This help was so effectively given as to induce a Whig
poet to put the popular feeling in rhyme:—
Thy guardian, blest Britannia, scorns to sleep,
When the sad subjects of his father weep.
Weak Princes, by their fears, increase distress,
He faces danger, and so makes it less.
Tyrants, on blazing towers may smile with joy:
He knows to save is greater than destroy!
When the king was this year in town, he risked his IN
popularity among the Whig mobile, by adding a KENSINGTON
GARDENS.
considerable portion of Hyde Park to the pretty but
confined grounds—Kensington Gardens. There was an outcry, but
grumblers were informed that they should rather rejoice, seeing that
the whole would be laid out ‘after the fashion of the Elector of
Hanover’s famous gardens at Herrenhausen.’ The Jacobites wished
the Elector had never quitted that ancestral home of beauty. The
present generation may be congratulated that the King of England
created such another home of beauty here. It was, indeed, for
himself and family: the public were not thought of. A few peers and
peeresses, with other great personages, were allowed to have keys,
in the absence of the royal family; but, at the present time, the
gardens have become the inheritance of the nation; and the national
heir may be proud of such a possession.
 It was there, in the autumn of the year, that two pleasant acts of
grace occurred. The Earl of Seaforth, attainted for his share in the
rebellion of 1715, was there, by arrangement, presented to the king.
The Jacobite peer went on his knees and confessed his treason. The
king granted him his pardon, and gave him his hand to kiss; but the
great Scottish earldom has never been restored to the noble house
of Mackenzie. A similar scene took place when Sir Hugh Paterson, of
Bannockburn, received the royal pardon.
Nevertheless, who was serving or betraying King SEAFORTH’S
George at the Chevalier’s Court, or King James in PARDON.
London, is, among other official secrets, locked up in
State papers. One illustration of the state of affairs in London was
afforded, unpleasantly, to Atterbury, by the pardon of Lord Seaforth.
That Jacobite peer had been made a Marquis by James III., and
wished to be further made a Duke. At the same time Seaforth was
negotiating with the British Government for his pardon and a grant
out of his forfeited estate. Both were accorded, and the ex-Jacobite
became a courtier at St. James’s. Mr. F. Williams, the apologist of
Atterbury, says, that such Jacobites caused endless anxiety to the
ex-bishop, and that their heart was not in the cause: all they had
nearest at heart was their own pride, selfishness, and vanity!
The above acts of grace increased the general goodwill which
was entertained towards the royal family. The Prince of Wales
showed especial tact in obtaining popular suffrage. When the water-
pageant of the Lord Mayor, Sir John Eyles, Bart., passed along the
river, the Prince and Princess of Wales, with the little Duke of
Cumberland, stood in the river-side gardens of old Somerset House,
to see the procession pass. It was not pre-arranged; but when the
family group was seen, the state barges pulled in towards the
garden-terrace, and there the chief magistrate offered wine to the
prince who, taking it, drank to ‘The Prosperity of the City of London.’
Colonel Exelbe, Chief Bailiff of the Weavers, brought up the
company’s state barge, as the others were pulling out to the middle
stream, and, say the daily chroniclers, ‘in a manly, hearty voice,
drank to the health of the Prince, the Princess, and the little Duke.’
The prince delighted the weavers by drinking to them ‘out of the
same bottle.’
The autumn brought pleasant news to London, namely, that the
disarmament of the Highlands had been successfully accomplished
by General Wade. This brings, in connection with London, a well-
known personage on the stage.
Robert Macgregor, having been compelled to drop
ROBERT
the prohited surname, had taken that of Campbell, but MACGREGOR
he was familiarly known as Rob Roy. He was in arms CAMPBELL.
against King George at Sheriff Muir, but he betrayed
the Jacobite cause by refusing, at a critical moment, to charge and
win a victory for King James. Romance has thrown a halo round this
most contemptible rascal. He wrote to Wade, when the disarmament
was going on: ‘I was forced to take part with the adherents of the
Pretender; for, the country being all in arms, it was neither safe nor
indeed possible for me to stand neuter. I should not, however, plead
my being forced into this unnatural Rebellion against his Majesty,
King George, if I could not at the same time assure your Excellency,
that I not only avoided acting offensively against his Majesty’s forces,
on all occasions, but, on the contrary, sent his Grace the Duke of
Argyle all the intelligence I could, from time to time, of the strength
and situation of the rebels, which I hope his Grace will do me the
justice to acknowledge.... Had it been in my power as it was in my
inclination, I should always have acted for the service of his Majesty
King George; and the one reason of my begging the favour of your
intercession with his Majesty, for the pardon of my life, is the earnest
desire I have to employ it in his service, whose goodness, justice,
and humanity are so conspicuous to all mankind.’ This precious
letter, signed Robert Campbell, is quoted by Scott (Introduction to
‘Rob Roy,’ edit. 1831), from an authentic narrative, by George
Chalmers, of Wade’s proceedings in the Highlands, which narrative
is incorporated into the Appendix to Burt’s ‘Letters from the North of
Scotland.’ Scott remarks on the letter from Rob Roy
ROB ROY’S
to Marshal Wade: ‘What influence his plea had on LETTER TO
General Wade we have no means of knowing.... Rob WADE.
Roy appears to have lived very much as usual.’ The
London newspapers show, on the contrary, that the usual tenour of
this thief and traitor’s life was very seriously interrupted. Of the
disaffected chiefs of clans who had been ‘out and active’ on the
Jacobite side in 1715, a good number at the time of the disarmament
were seized and brought to London, with intimation that their lives
would be spared. What became of them is told in the ‘Weekly
Journal’ for January 24th, 1727, namely, that ‘His Majesty, with his
usual clemency, had pardoned the following Jacobites who had been
convicted capitally of high treason in the first year of his reign, for
levying war against him.’ The pardoned traitors were: ‘Robert Stuart
of Appin, Alexander Macdonald of Glencoe, Grant of Glenmorrison,
Machinnin of that Ilk, Mackenzie of Fairburn, Mackenzie of
Dachmalnack, Chisholm of Strathglass, Mackenzie of Ballumukie,
MacDougal of Lorne,’ and two others, more notable than all the rest,
‘James, commonly called Lord, Ogilvie,’ and ‘Robert Campbell, alias
MacGregor, commonly called Rob Roy.’ They had
ROB ROY IN
been under durance in London, for it is added that ‘on NEWGATE.
Tuesday last, they were carried from Newgate to
Gravesend, to be put on shipboard for transportation to Barbadoes,’
Rob Roy marching handcuffed to Lord Ogilvie through the London
streets, from Newgate to the prison barge at Blackfriars, and thence
to Gravesend is an incident that escaped the notice of Walter Scott
and of all Rob’s biographers. The barge load of Highland chiefs and
of some thieves seems, however, to have been pardoned, and
allowed to return home.[1]
The Highland ‘Bobadil,’ MacGregor, is said to have appeared
publicly in London, both in street and park, and that, as he was
walking in front of St. James’s Palace, the Duke of Argyle pointed
him out to George I., or according to another version, George II.; and
that at the sight, the king declared, he had never seen a handsomer
man in the Highland garb. This was probably one of the floating
stories of the time, lacking foundation, save that a plaided Scotsman
may have been seen near the palace; thence came the story. With a
fictitious story of Rob’s exploits, the Londoners,
ROB ROY IN
however, were familiar. This appeared in a history LONDON.
called the ‘The Highland Rogue.’ Scott describes it as
‘a catchpenny publication. In this book, Rob is said to be a species of
ogre with a beard of a foot in length; and his actions are as much
exaggerated as his personal appearance.’ It seems to have been
made up of details in which there was much inaccuracy and still
more invention. Seven years after the release from Newgate, Rob
Roy died at Innerlochlarig-beg, on the 28th of December, 1734. He
was buried in Balquhidder churchyard, half a dozen miles from
where he died, and he was, at the time of his death, sixty-three years
and some odd months old.
An honest man, one who served his country well, but who has not
been celebrated in romance like Rob Roy, was missed from the
Southwark side of the Thames, where his figure had been daily
familiar for a long period to the inhabitants, namely, Sir Rowland
Gwyn. On the last Monday in January, this venerable baronet died.
The ultramontane Jacobites had little respect for him. When Sir
Rowland was M.P. for Radnor, in King William’s reign, he brought in
the Bill for settling the Protestant Succession in the House of
Hanover. For some time Sir Rowland was our ‘Resident’ in Hanover;
but he displeased Queen Anne’s Ministry, withdrew to Hamburg, and
did not return to England till the accession of George I. After figuring
in London for a time, hard circumstances drove him to live in the
Liberties of the King’s Bench, and there, after having been familiarly
known to, and diversely treated by, both Whigs and Tories, the old
ultra-Protestant Baronet died, somewhat miserably.
The king blew a loud note of alarm, with regard to A NOTE OF
the Chevalier, on the last occasion of the opening ALARM.
Parliament during his reign. Lord Chancellor King
read the royal speech, in which the announcement was made that
the Emperor and the King of Spain had entered into an offensive
alliance, the object of which was to place the Pretender on the British
throne and to destroy the established religion and government. The
Emperor’s representative in London, Von Palm, made a bold
comment on this speech. It was conveyed in a Latin letter to his
British Majesty, in which the writer impertinently stated that there
were many assertions in the speech which were misstatements,
meant truthfully, perhaps, but much strained to make them wear a
truthful appearance. Other assertions were (if well meant) based on
erroneous grounds; but the declaration that the Emperor had joined,
secretly or openly, with the King of Spain to effect the restoration of
the Stuarts, was denounced by Von Palm as an unmitigated
falsehood. For this audacity, the Imperial representative was ordered
to leave the kingdom. The envoy’s great offence had been made
greater by the publication of the Imperial Memorial (translated) in
London, by the Emperor’s order. This appeal to the nation against
the sovereign manifested a vulgar impudence on the part of his
sacred, imperial, and catholic Majesty which thoroughly disgusted
the people of these kingdoms. To the great honour of
PATRIOTIC
the Jacobites in Parliament, they exhibited a true JACOBITES.
English spirit. They became, in fact, for the first time,
‘his Majesty’s Opposition.’ Shippen and Wyndham, especially, in
Parliament, supported by their political colleagues, branded this
ignoble attempt to put dissension between king and people as one
which touched the honour of the nation, and which the nation would
resent, to sustain the honour of its king. If this display of spirit led
some to believe that Jacobitism, as a Stuart sentiment, was dead,
the belief was erroneous. Soon after Palm was compelled to leave
the kingdom, an outrage was committed on the recently erected
double-gilt equestrian statue of George I., in Grosvenor Square. The
statue, which was ‘by Nost,’ according to the papers, Van Ost was
pulled down, horse and rider. The kings sword was broken, his
truncheon beaten out of his hands, his legs and arms hammered off,
and a significant hacking at his neck was a token of beheading him
in effigy. A gross libel was stuck to the pedestal; and that unoccupied
pedestal still remains as a monument of the Jacobite virulence of the
time. A reward of 100l. was offered in vain for the discovery of the
perpetrators.
At this moment there was a Frenchman in London VOLTAIRE.
who was sufficiently distinguished, even then, to have
his name turned to account in a partisan political paragraph,—
Voltaire. The Jacobites were probably not aware of Voltaire’s
approval of the martyrdom of their king and saint, Charles I. ‘On the
30th of January,’ said Voltaire, ‘every King wakes with a crick in the
neck.’ On January 28th, the ‘British Journal’ had the following well-
turned paragraph: ‘Last week, M. Voltaire, the famous French poet,
who was banished from France, was introduced to his Majesty who
received him very graciously. They say he has received notice from
France not to print his Poem of the League, “La Henriade,” a
Prosecution still depending against him, by the Cardinal de Bissy, on
the Account of the Praises bestowed in that Book on Queen
Elizabeth’s behaviour in Matters of Religion, and a great many
Strokes against the Abuse of Popery, and against Persecution in
Matter of Faith.’ This allusion to religious liberty had, unconsciously,
a startling comment. While Voltaire was kissing the royal hand, a
soldier was being ‘whipt’ in the Park, for being a Papist! He was
neither the first nor the last who suffered for no worse cause. At the
same moment, the ultramontane authorities in France were hanging
men for belonging to the reformed religion! What an excellent thing it
is for Christian brethren to live together in love and unity!
On the 3rd of June, the royal and imperial courts THE NEW
having become reconciled, and peace seeming REIGN.
established among nations, the king set out for
Hanover. That day week he was lying dead on a sofa at Osnaburg. A
heavy supper and much cold melon, the night before, had done the
work which, as some thought, might prove a Jacobite opportunity. It
proved otherwise. A paragraph of a few lines in the newspapers,
unencumbered by any mourning border, told the people that a new
reign had begun. The old king was soon forgotten. The younger one
and his queen, Caroline, mourned officially, but they inaugurated
their own accession, joyously. It may be added, ‘wisely,’ too. Their
water-pageants made the then silver Thames glad and glorious.
They went afloat in state, followed by gay Court barges full of high-
born ladies and gallant gentlemen. The royal musicians in another
vessel played the last new opera airs. According to the tide, these
great folk went up the river to Chelsea or down to Shadwell. They
received warm welcome whithersoever they went; more particularly
when the royal barge pulled in near the shore, and the pleased
occupants graciously took the flowers offered to them by good
people, who might be hanged before the month was out, for stealing
half of one of the nosegays. On these occasions, the broad river
could hardly be seen for the compact mass of boats, fearfully laden,
that drifted or were rowed upon it. As in the first George’s time, these
popular pageants continued afloat long after the moon was up. Often
on these occasions, the king and queen did not land at Whitehall, till
after ten had struck. There, the sedan chairs were in waiting, and
with one individual in each, gentlemen of the chamber and maids of
honour being carried in the rear, and torchbearers, if need were,
flanking the procession, the whole party were daintily lifted through
the park to St. James’s palace.
The coronation was to have taken place on the 4th
CORONATION.
of October. It was put off for a week. At this
postponement, people speculated on the possibility of some Jacobite
daring to take up the Champion’s gage. The Jacobite that was really
feared was named Spring Tide. An invasion of Westminster Hall was
both possible and probable; and thence, the postponement for a
week. On the 11th the ceremony was performed with somewhat of
maimed rites. The queen went in a close sedan to Westminster, with
the Lord Chamberlain and a Maid of Honour in hack chairs; and they
returned in the same unroyal fashion. There was no interruption in
Abbey or Hall, as timid people anticipated, and at night all London
was drunk, or nearly so, according to custom.
On the king’s birthday in October, there was a singular sort of
rejoicing in one part of the metropolis. There were Jacobite and other
prisoners in Newgate who ‘lay there for their fines,’—in fact, could
not be discharged for lack of cash to pay their fees. They celebrated
the day ‘by illuminating the windows of the gaol with candles;’ they
drank the health of their Majesties who would do nothing to deliver
them, the Judges who had condemned, and the Magistrates who
had previously committed them. They forgave everybody, and went
to bed almost as drunk as their keepers. It is due to the king however
to say that when he with the queen and royal family dined with the
Mayor and chief citizens in the Guildhall, he left a thousand pounds
for the relief of poor debtors. Some ‘state prisoners’ in Newgate were
also liberated on their recognizances.
In December, Frederick, Prince of Wales, in PRINCE
obedience to his father’s commands, left Hanover FREDERICK.
suddenly in the night. He travelled to the coast, and
embarked on board an ordinary packet-boat from Holland to
Harwich. Thence, he went on his way posting to Whitechapel; there
he hired a hackney-coach, drove to St. James’s, and walked by the
back stairs to the queen’s room, where he was decently welcomed,
though the greeting was neither affectionate nor enthusiastic.
Outwardly, there was an appearance of tranquility; but there was
still an uneasiness in the Ministry, which seems to have led to the
establishment of a spy system in private society. In the Atterbury
correspondence of this year, there is a letter (written in December)
from the Duchess of Buckingham to Mrs. Morrice, in which that
illegitimate daughter of James II. says:—‘I have nothing passes in
my family I would give three farthings to hide, yet I am sure the
gossiping women and such kind of men send and invite my son to
dinner and supper, to pick something from him of what passes in
conversation either from me or my company.’
Walpole, however, had never experienced any difficulty in getting
any information he required from the Jacobite duchess, whom he
duped and flattered.

[1] Lord Ogilvie, son of the Earl of Airlie, did not assume the
title borne by his father, when the latter died in 1717; but when
Lord Ogilvie died childless, in 1731, his next brother, John, took
the title of Earl. This John’s son, David, Lord Ogilvie, not profiting
by experience, fell under attainder for acting with the Jacobites in
arms, in 1745; but he too was ultimately pardoned by George III.
The hereditary honours, however, were not confirmed by Act of
Parliament till 1826, when David, who had called himself Earl of
Airlie, could thenceforth do so without question.
 CHAPTER II.

(1728 to 1732.)
he Court of George II. opened the new year with a
reckless gaiety that reminds one of Whitehall in the
time of Charles II., as described by Evelyn. Twelfth
Night was especially dissipated in its character. There
was a ball at St. James’s, and there were numerous
gaming tables for those who did not dance. The king and queen lost
500 guineas at Ombre; the Earl of Sunderland, more than twice as
much. General Wade lost 800 guineas, and Lord Finch half that sum.
The winners were Lord William Manners, of 1,200 guineas; the
Duchess of Dorset, of 900 guineas; the Earl of Chesterfield, of 550
guineas. The play was frantically pursued, and a madder scene
could not have been exhibited by the Stuarts themselves. Mist’s
Jacobite Journal referred sarcastically to the brilliant
MIST’S
dissipation. On the wit and repartee which duly JOURNAL.
distinguished a royal masquerade at the opera-house,
Mist made a remark by which he contrived to hit the Parliament.
‘They may be looked upon,’ he said, ‘as a Prologue to the Top Parts
that are expected to be soon acted in another place.’ The death of
an honest Scotch baronet, named Wallace, gave Mist another
opportunity which he did not let slip. ‘Sir Thomas’ was declared to be
‘a lineal descendant of the famous Sir William Wallace of Eldersly,
called the Restorer of the Liberties of Scotland, in whose days our
distressed country wanted not a worthy patriot to assert her rights.’
On the anniversary of Queen Anne’s birthday, Mist eulogised her as
‘that great and good Queen,’ praised the lovers of Justice, Religion,
and Liberty who kept the day; and added that she was the zealous
defender of all three, ‘and therefore dear to the memory of all such
whose hearts are entirely English.’ For less than this, men had stood
in the pillory. Edmund Curll, the publisher, was standing there at this
very time for nothing worse than publishing a ‘Memoir of John Ker of
Kersland.’ The times and the manners thereof were, the first,
miserable; the second, horrible. Robbery and murder were
accounted for ‘by the general poverty and corruption of the times,
and the prevalency of some powerful examples.’ In June, the ‘wasp
sting’ takes this form: ‘There is no record of any robberies this week;
—we mean, in the street.’
But for Mist, the general London public would have been ignorant
of the movements of illustrious Jacobites, abroad. In that paper, they
read of the huntings of the Chevalier de St. George and his boy,
Charles Edward. Lord North and Grey, now a ‘Lieutenant-General in
the army of England,’ and the Duke of Wharton, Colonel of the
Spanish regiment, ‘Hibernia,’ with other honest gentlemen of the
same principles, were helping to make Rouen one of the gayest of
residences. At a later period, when Wolfe became the printer of this
Jacobite ‘Weekly,’ and changed its name to ‘Fog’s Journal,’ canards
were plentiful. The Duke of Wharton is described as having opened
a school in Rouen, with a Newgate bird for an usher; Mist is said to
have set up a hackney coach in the same city; and all three are
congratulated on being able to earn a decent livelihood!
A much more honourable Jacobite than any of the
LOCKHART OF
above, was this year pardoned, namely, Lockhart of CARNWATH.
Carnwath; but, he was required by the English
Government to pass through London, and present himself to the
king. His return from exile was permitted only in case of his
obedience. On the other hand, Lockhart stipulated that he should be
asked no questions, and that he should be at full liberty to proceed
home, unmolested. Sir Robert Walpole agreed to these terms.
Lockhart left Rotterdam in May, and arrived safely in London.
King George seems to have had a curiosity to see
GEORGE II.
a man who had been plotting to set another in his AND
place. ‘It was the more remarkable,’ says Lockhart, ‘in LOCKHART.
that he could not be persuaded or prevailed on to
extend it’ (his gracious disposition) ‘to others, particularly my Lady
Southesk, whose case was more favourable than mine; and so, to
gratify him by my appearing in his Court, I was obliged to come to
London. This was what did not go well down with me, and what I
would gladly have avoided, but there was no eviting it; and as others,
whose sincere attachment to the king’ (James III.) ‘had often
preceded me on such like occasions, I was under a necessity of
bowing my knee to Baal, now that I was in the house of Rimmon.’
Lockhart was kept waiting more than a fortnight for the interview.
During the whole of that time, he was ordered to keep himself shut
up in his house. Imagining he was to be put off, he boldly wrote to
Walpole that he might be sent back to Rotterdam. ‘Whereupon, he
sent for me next day, and introduced me to King George in his
closet. After a little speech of thanks, he told me with some heat in
his looks that I had been long in a bad way, and he’d judge, how far I
deserved the favour he had now shown me, by my future conduct. I
made a bow and went off and determined never to trust to his mercy,
which did not seem to abound.’
Lockhart, however, did trust to King George’s mercy, and to his
honour. He appeared in public, and was much questioned by Tories
in private, or at dinners and assemblies, as to the affairs of the so-
called James III. He told them just as much as he pleased to tell
them. They knew too much, he said, already; but they evidently
thought the Jacobite cause in a better condition than it really was.
Lockhart adds the strange fact that all the members of the
Government received him with great—Sir Robert Walpole with
particularly great—civility. ‘Several insinuations were made that if I
would enter into the service and measures of the Government I
should be made very welcome. But I told them that I was heartily
weary of dabbling in politics, and wanted only to retire and live
privately at home.’
Lockhart lingered in London, only to hear how well- THE JACOBITE
informed the Government had been of his CAUSE.
proceedings; they had read his letters, knew his
cyphers, employed his own agents, and had a spy at the Chevalier’s
side who enjoyed his confidence and betrayed it, for filthy lucre!
Lockhart suspected Inverness, but he was doubtless not the only
agent. The old Jacobite began to despair of the cause. Above a
dozen years had elapsed since the outbreak of 1715, and while
much had been done, the activity had been employed on doing
nothing. There was now no party, and of course, no projects.
Lockhart’s visit to London, where he associated with Whigs and
Tories, taught him a sad truth to which he gives melancholy
expression. ‘The old race drops off by degrees, and a new one
sprouts up, that, having no particular bias to the king, as knowing
little more of him than what the public newspapers bear, enter on the
stage with a perfect indifference, at least coolness, towards him and
his cause, which consequently must daily languish and, in process of
time, be totally forgot. In which melancholy situation of the king’s
affairs. I leave them in the year 1728.’
George Lockhart admired neither the English
CHARACTER
people nor their representatives in the House of OF THE
Commons. Both he considered equally ignorant of the HOUSE OF
nature of true liberty and the principle of honest COMMONS.
government. Speaking at one time of the members in Parliament
assembled, he observes,—‘Though all of them are vested with equal
powers, a very few, of the most active and pragmatical, by
persuading the rest that nothing is done without them, do lead them
by the nose and make mere tools of them, to serve their own ends.
And this, I suppose, is owing to the manner and way of electing the
members; for, being entirely in the hands of the populace, they, for
the most part, choose those who pay best; so that many are elected
who very seldom attend the House, give themselves no trouble in
business and have no design in being chosen, even at a great
expense, but to have the honour of being called Parliament men. On
the other hand, a great many are likewise elected who have no
concern for the interest of their country, and, being either poor or
avaricious, aim at nothing but enriching themselves; and hence it is
that no assembly under Heaven produces so many fools and
knaves. The House of Commons is represented as a wise and
august Assembly; what it was long ago I shall not say, but in our
days, it is full of disorder and confusion. The members that are
capable and mindful of business are few in number, and the rest
mind nothing at all. When there is a party job to be done, they’ll
attend, and make a hideous noise, like Bedlamites; but if the House
is to enter on business, such as the giving of money or making of
public laws, they converse so loud with one another in private knots,