M., in the latitude of Neuburg, which exactly agrees with the birth of Otto Henry, and this information is confirmed by the decagonal sundial further along the table. With respect to the second figure, the instruments are still more explicit, for the date, November 12th, is repeated no less than four times on Apian’s Torquetum, the astrolabe, and the quadrant, with the additional information that the hour of birth was between five and six, which exactly agrees with the day of the month and the hour of the birth of Philipp.[95] Footnote 95: The present writer, although he has made a careful study of Mr. Dickes’ readings of the instruments, has not sufficient scientific knowledge to speak with authority as to the correctness or otherwise of the results he obtains, which, if true, provide by far the most ingenious and, indeed, the only plausible evidence he has brought forward in favour of his theory. This evidence, however, is not always as convincing as he would have us to believe. Thus, the decagonal sundial, which on two of its sides gives the time as 10.30 (the hour of Otto Henry’s birth), very clearly indicates 9.30 on its third and most prominent side, while it almost touches the elbow of the second figure, and so should refer, if to any one, to Philipp. Mr. Dickes gets over this difficulty by the statement that the sundial, “presenting three circles to be read, naturally devotes the two chief dials to the principal person. These are—the dial with the wire stile, in front, and the dial beneath the magnet on the top;” but he offers no suggestion as to whose birth the third and most prominent dial refers. [Sidenote: THE ACCESSORIES OF THE PICTURE] Space does not permit even a brief reference to further erroneous inferences which Mr. Dickes draws from other parts of the picture, all of which were fully and finally dealt with by Sir Sidney Colvin in a review of the book.[96] Mr. Dickes by no means strengthens his case by reproducing a number of portraits, selected from various European galleries, in which he sees likenesses to his two heroes, though they bear but the faintest resemblance either to genuine portraits of the Counts Palatine or to the sitters in the “Ambassadors” picture.[97] Footnote 96: _Burlington Magazine_, August 1903, pp. 367-69. Footnote 97: The two most glaring examples of this, which show to what lengths a fixed idea can carry one, are the splendid portrait by Holbein of the Sieur de Morette, which he declares to be painted by Amberger, and to represent Otto Henry at some date after 1556, when he was Elector Palatine; and the beautiful little portrait of Hermann Wedigh, of the Steelyard, dated 1533, which, as already noted, he holds to be an unmistakable portrait of Philipp.