# JHEP 02(2000)042, hep-th/9910212 On the generalized Legendre transform and monopole metrics

## 1 Introduction

Monopole moduli spaces are hyperkähler and, therefore, have a twistor description. Such a description is given in . More recently, Ivanov and Roček used the generalized Legendre transform of  to construct the metric on the 2-monopole moduli space . The relationship between these two twistor constructions is clarified in this paper.

The twistor space of a hyperkähler manifold, $`M`$, is a trivial fiber bundle, $`Z=M\times ^1`$, with a holomorphic symplectic form $`\omega `$, which is an $`𝒪(2)`$ section over $`^1`$. $`^1`$ is covered by two affine patches, $`U_0`$ and $`U_1`$. If $`\zeta `$ is the usual projective coordinate on $`U_0`$, then $`\omega `$ is given on the fiber over $`\zeta `$ by $`\omega =(\omega _2+i\omega _3)+2\zeta \omega _1\zeta ^2(\omega _2i\omega _3)`$ where $`\omega _1`$, $`\omega _2`$ and $`\omega _3`$ are the covariantly constant 2-forms which hyperkählerity implies exist on $`M`$.

The generalized Legendre transform construction shows how the Kähler potential may be calculated, if $`\omega `$ is assumed to have a certain form. In subsection 1.1 of this introductory section, there is a brief review of this construction. This is followed, in subsection 1.2, by a brief review of the twistor theory of monopoles and the related twistor theory of monopole moduli spaces. In section 2, this twistor theory is re-expressed as a generalized Legendre transform. The Legendre transform constraints are then the Ercolani-Sinha conditions .

### 1.1 Twistors and the generalized Legendre transform

The generalized Legendre transform construction of  concerns twistor spaces with $`k`$ intermediate holomorphic projections $`Z𝒪(2n_j)^1`$, where $`j=1\mathrm{}k`$ and $`n_j`$ are integers. In the example of interest in this paper $`n_j=j`$ and for ease of notation attention is restricted to that case. This requirement is equivalent to the existence of $`k`$ coordinates $`\alpha ^j(\zeta )`$ on $`Z`$, so that $`\alpha ^j(\zeta )`$ is a degree $`2j`$ polynomial:

$$\alpha ^j=\underset{a=1}{\overset{2j}{}}w_a^j\zeta ^a,$$
(1)   
satisfying the reality condition $`\alpha ^j(\zeta )=(1)^j\zeta ^{2j}\overline{\alpha ^j(1/\overline{\zeta })}.`$

The construction is derived from the patching formulae relating quantities over $`U_0`$ and $`U_1`$. The coordinate on $`U_1`$ is given by $`\stackrel{~}{\zeta }=1/\zeta `$. Since $`\omega `$ is an $`𝒪(2)`$ line bundle, it is given on $`U_1`$ by $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }`$, where

$$\stackrel{~}{\omega }=\frac{1}{\zeta ^2}\omega $$
(2)   
on $`U_0U_1`$. Similarly, the $`\alpha ^j`$ coordinates are related by

$$\stackrel{~}{\alpha }^j=\frac{1}{\zeta ^{2j}}\alpha ^j.$$
(3)   
This means that, if $`(\alpha ^j,\xi ^j,\zeta )`$ are coordinates for the whole of $`Z`$, such that

$$\omega =\underset{j=1}{\overset{k}{}}d\alpha ^jd\xi ^j,$$
(4)   
then, the patching formula for $`\xi ^j`$ must be

$$\stackrel{~}{\xi }^j=\zeta ^{2j2}\left(\xi ^j+\frac{H}{\alpha ^j}\right)$$
(5)   
for some function $`H(\alpha ^j)`$.

The expansion of these coordinates as power series is now considered. The patching formulae will place constraints on the values of certain coefficients in these expansions and these constraints will be unified as constraints on a single function $`F`$. By expanding the symplectic form in $`\zeta `$, it is possible to calculate the Kähler potential for the metric on $`M`$ in terms of $`F`$.

Assuming that $`\xi ^j`$ is non-singular near $`\zeta =0`$;

$$\xi ^j=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}x_n^j\zeta ^n,\stackrel{~}{\xi }^j=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}y_n^j\zeta ^n.$$
(6)   
Using the residue theorem and the patching formula (5), this means that

$$x_m^j=\frac{1}{2\pi i}_0\xi ^j\frac{d\zeta }{\zeta ^{m+1}}=\frac{1}{2\pi i}_0\stackrel{~}{\xi }^j\frac{d\zeta }{\zeta ^{m+2j1}}\frac{1}{2\pi i}_0\frac{H}{\alpha ^j}\frac{d\zeta }{\zeta ^{m+1}}$$
(7)   
where $`0`$ is the small contour surrounding $`\zeta =0`$. The integral of $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }^j`$ does not give the coefficient $`y_{2m2j}^j`$, because the contour around $`\zeta =0`$ may enclose branch cuts. It is assumed that the contribution from these cuts can be expressed as an integral of some new function, $`H^{}`$, around some contour, $`c`$. This integral is the effect of moving the contour of the $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }^j`$ integral from a small contour around zero to a small contour around infinity. This technique is justified by example and is dealt with carefully in the specific case considered below. Thus,

$$x_m^j=y_{2m2j}^j\frac{1}{2\pi i}_c\frac{H^{}}{\alpha ^j}\frac{d\zeta }{\zeta ^{m+1}}\frac{1}{2\pi i}_0\frac{H}{\alpha ^j}\frac{d\zeta }{\zeta ^{m+1}}.$$
(8)   
A function $`F`$ is defined as

$$F=\frac{1}{2\pi i}_cH^{}\frac{d\zeta }{\zeta ^2}\frac{1}{2\pi i}_0H\frac{d\zeta }{\zeta ^2}.$$
(9)   
By the chain rule

$$\frac{F}{w_n^j}=\frac{1}{2\pi i}_c\frac{H^{}}{\alpha ^j}\zeta ^n\frac{d\zeta }{\zeta ^2}\frac{1}{2\pi i}_0\frac{H}{\alpha ^j}\zeta ^n\frac{d\zeta }{\zeta ^2}$$
(10)   
Therefore, from (8)

$$\frac{F}{w_0^j}=x_1^j,\frac{F}{w_1^j}=x_0^j$$
(11)   
and, for $`0<a<2j2`$,

$$\frac{F}{w_a^j}=0.$$
(12)   
The symplectic form can be expanded in $`\zeta `$ to determine $`\omega _1`$ on the fiber above $`\zeta =0`$. The coordinates on this fiber are $`\alpha ^j(0)=w_0^j`$ and $`\xi ^j(0)=x_0^j`$. It can then be shown that the Kähler form for the hyperkähler manifold, $`M`$, is given by

$$K(w_0^j,x_0^j)=F(w_0^j,w_1^j)\underset{j=1}{\overset{k}{}}x_0^jw_1^j\underset{j=1}{\overset{k}{}}\overline{x}_0^j\overline{w}_1^j$$
(13)   
where $`w_1^j`$ is related to $`x_0^j`$ by (11) . This is the generalized Legendre transform construction.

### 1.2 Twistors and monopoles

The twistor theory of monopoles is described in . A $`k`$-monopole is equivalent to a curve, $`S`$, in $`T^1`$ of the form

$$P(\eta ,\zeta )=\eta ^k+\underset{j=1}{\overset{k}{}}\alpha ^j\zeta ^{kj}=0$$
(14)   
where $`\alpha ^j`$ is, as before, a degree $`2j`$ polynomial satisfying the reality condition. $`\eta `$ is the usual coordinate on the fiber of $`T^1^1`$. $`S`$ is called the spectral curve. In addition to the reality condition on $`\alpha ^j`$, it must also satisfy a number of algebraic-geometric conditions. In particular it is required that the $`L^2`$ bundle over the spectral curve must be trivial.

The patches $`U_0`$ and $`U_1`$ on $`^1`$ lift to patches on $`T^1`$. These, in turn, give patches on the spectral curve: these will also be called $`U_0`$ and $`U_1`$. The triviality of the $`L^2`$ bundle over the spectral curve, means that there is a section given by two nowhere vanishing holomorphic functions $`f_0`$ on $`U_0`$ and $`f_1`$ on $`U_1`$ satisfying

$$f_0(\eta ,\zeta )=e^{\frac{2\eta }{\zeta }}f_1(\eta ,\zeta )$$
(15)   
on the intersection $`U_0U_1`$.

In , explicit integral conditions are given for the existence of such a section. There must exist a 1-cycle $`c`$ so that any global holomorphic 1-form, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, satisfies

$$_c\mathrm{\Omega }=2\underset{j=1}{\overset{k}{}}\eta _j(0)g_j$$
(16)   
where $`\eta _j(0)`$ is the value of $`\eta `$ at $`0_j`$, the point on the $`j`$th sheet above $`\zeta =0`$. $`g_j`$ is defined by writing $`\mathrm{\Omega }=g_jd\zeta `$ at $`0_j`$. These are the Ercolani-Sinha conditions. $`c`$ must be primitive if the $`L^s`$ bundle on $`S`$ is nontrivial for $`0<s<2`$: another necessary condition.

In the calculation of section 2, the relationship between $`c`$ and the $`L^2`$ section will be important. If $`\{a_1,\mathrm{},a_g,b_1,\mathrm{},b_g\}`$ is a canonical homology basis,

$$c=\underset{r=1}{\overset{g}{}}(n_ra_r+m_rb_r)$$
(17)   
where $`n_r=\frac{1}{2\pi i}_{b_r}d\mathrm{log}f_1`$ and $`m_r=\frac{1}{2\pi i}_{a_r}d\mathrm{log}f_1`$ are integers.

The twistor data for monopoles can also be used to derive a twistor space for the $`k`$-monopole moduli space, $`M_k`$. Coordinates for $`M_k`$ are provided by the rational map description . This description relates a $`k`$-monopole to a degree $`k`$ based rational map: $`p(z)/q(z)`$. $`q(z)`$ is a monic polynomial of degree $`k`$ and $`p(z)`$ is a polynomial of degree $`k1`$, which has no factors in common with $`q(z)`$. Following Hurtubise , the rational map for a monopole can be constructed from the spectral curve and the trivialization of the $`L^2`$ bundle. A direction, $`\zeta `$, is chosen and

$`q(z;\zeta )`$ $`=`$ $`P(z,\zeta )`$   
$`p(z;\zeta )`$ $``$ $`f_0(z,\zeta )\text{mod}q(z).`$ (18)   
Now, if $`q(z)`$ has distinct roots, $`\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _k`$, coordinates for $`M_k`$ are given by $`(\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _k,p(\eta _1),\mathrm{},p(\eta _k))`$. Atiyah and Hitchin point out in , that the symplectic form

$$\omega =\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}\frac{dp(\eta _i)d\eta _i}{p(\eta _i)}$$
(19)   
has the property that $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }=\zeta ^2\omega `$ and is, therefore, an $`𝒪(2)`$ section over $`^1`$.

In the next section, the relationship between the rational map and the spectral curve is exploited to clarify the relationship between this symplectic form and the generalized Legendre transformation.

## 2 The generalized Legendre transform and monopole moduli spaces

The formula for the spectral curve (14) defines $`\eta _i`$ as roots of a polynomial equation whose coefficients are $`𝒪(2j)`$ sections. Because of this, $`\omega `$ can be rewritten

$$\omega =\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{k1}{}}\frac{dp(\eta _i)}{p(\eta _i)}\frac{\eta _j}{\alpha ^j}d\alpha ^j=\underset{j=1}{\overset{k1}{}}d\xi ^jd\alpha ^j$$
(20)   
where

$$\xi ^j=\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}\frac{\eta _i}{\alpha ^j}\chi (\eta _i)$$
(21)   
and $`\chi (\eta ,\zeta )=\mathrm{log}p(\eta ;\zeta )`$. $`\xi ^j`$ is not defined on the spectral curve, since $`\chi `$ is not. In general, $`_a𝑑\chi 0`$ for a nontrivial cycle $`a`$. $`\chi `$ can be defined by cutting the surface. The 1-forms $`d\chi `$ and $`d\xi ^j`$ are defined on the uncut surface.

The patching formula for $`\chi `$ follows from the $`L^2`$ patching formula (15), since $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }=\mathrm{log}f_1`$,

$$\stackrel{~}{\chi }=\chi +\frac{2\eta }{\zeta }.$$
(22)   
This, in turn, provides a patching formula for $`\xi ^j`$,

$$\stackrel{~}{\xi }^j=\zeta ^{2j2}\left(\xi ^j+2\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}\frac{\eta _i}{\alpha ^j}\frac{\eta _i}{\zeta }\right)=\zeta ^{2j2}\left(\xi ^j+\frac{}{\alpha ^j}\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}\frac{\eta _i^2}{\zeta }\right).$$
(23)   
Therefore, $`\xi ^j`$ has a Legendre transform patching formula with

$$H=\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}\frac{\eta _i^2}{\zeta }.$$
(24)   
This is the Hamiltonian function mentioned in .

Now, as before, the integral around $`\zeta =0`$ is considered. Because of the particular form of the sum in the expression for $`H`$, the integral on $`^1`$ can be written as an integral on the spectral curve.

$$\frac{1}{2\pi i}_0\frac{}{\alpha ^j}H\frac{d\zeta }{\zeta ^{m+1}}=\frac{1}{2\pi i}_0\frac{}{\alpha ^j}\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}\frac{\eta _i^2}{\zeta }\frac{d\zeta }{\zeta ^{m+1}}=\frac{1}{2\pi i}_{_{i=1}^k0_i}\frac{}{\alpha ^j}\frac{\eta ^2}{\zeta }\frac{d\zeta }{\zeta ^{m+1}}$$
(25)   
where $`0_j`$ is the small contour on the $`j`$th sheet of the spectral curve around the lift of $`\zeta =0`$ to that sheet.

Next, the contour in the $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }^j`$ integral must be moved from $`0`$ to $`\mathrm{}`$. This is not difficult if the integral is first rewritten as an integral on the spectral curve:

$$\frac{1}{2\pi i}_0\stackrel{~}{\xi }^j\frac{d\zeta }{\zeta ^{m+2j1}}=\frac{1}{2\pi i}_{_{i=1}^k0_i}\frac{\stackrel{~}{\eta }}{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }^j}\stackrel{~}{\chi }\frac{d\zeta }{\zeta ^{m+2j1}}$$
(26)   
$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$ is defined on the $`4g`$-gon, formed by cutting the spectral curve along the canonical homology 1-cycles $`a_r`$ and $`b_r`$ for $`r=1\mathrm{}g`$. Although the spectral curve is obtained from the $`4g`$-gon by identifying appropriate edges, the function $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$ does not respect the identifications. In fact, since, for example,

$$_{b_1}d\mathrm{log}f_1=2\pi in_1$$
(27)   
the value of $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$, at a point on the $`a_1^1`$ edge, is $`2\pi n_1`$ larger than its value at the corresponding point on the $`a_1`$ edge. This means that

$$\frac{1}{2\pi i}_{\text{edge}}f(\zeta )\stackrel{~}{\chi }𝑑\zeta =\underset{r=1}{\overset{g}{}}\left(n_r_{a_r}f(\zeta )𝑑\zeta +m_r_{b_r}f(\zeta )𝑑\zeta \right)=_cf(\zeta )𝑑\zeta $$
(28)   
where $`f(\zeta )`$ is any function which is well-behaved on the edge and $`c`$ is the special homology cycle mentioned above (17). Furthermore, it is easy to see that

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}0_i+\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}\mathrm{}_i=\text{edge}$$
(29)   
and so

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle _0}\stackrel{~}{\xi }^j{\displaystyle \frac{d\zeta }{\zeta ^{m+2j1}}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}}\stackrel{~}{\xi }^j\stackrel{~}{\zeta }^{m+2j3}𝑑\zeta +{\displaystyle _c}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\eta }}{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }^j}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\zeta }{\zeta ^{m+2j1}}}`$ (30)   
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}}\stackrel{~}{\xi }^j\stackrel{~}{\zeta }^{m+2j3}𝑑\zeta +{\displaystyle _c}{\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{\alpha ^j}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\zeta }{\zeta ^{m+1}}}.`$   
Thus, the Legendre transformation of the $`k`$-monopole metric is given by

$$F=_c\frac{\eta }{\zeta ^2}𝑑\zeta \frac{1}{2\pi i}_{_{i=1}^k0_i}\frac{\eta ^2}{\zeta ^3}𝑑\zeta .$$
(31)   
This $`F`$ has also been considered by Roger Bielawski .

$`F`$ is composed of integrals on the spectral curve, rather that on $`^1`$ itself. The integrals can be rewritten as integrals on $`^1`$, although they become less succinct. If the integral in the $`k=2`$ case is rewritten in this way the $`F`$ used by Ivanov and Roček to calculate the Atiyah-Hitchin metric  is recovered. In that case the two branches over $`\zeta =0`$ differ only by a sign in $`\eta `$ and the special contour, $`c`$, is an equator.

In the $`k=2`$ case, the constraint (12) arising in the generalized Legendre transform construction is precisely the one that Hurtubise demonstrates must be satisfied for a spectral curve to ensure triviality of the $`L^2`$ bundle . In fact, it is true for all $`k`$, that the generalized Legendre transformation constraints are the $`L^2`$ triviality conditions (16).

This is demonstrated by using the spectral curve equation to rewrite the integrands in the constraint equations.

$$\frac{d}{dw_a^j}P(\eta ,\zeta )=\frac{P}{\eta }\frac{\eta }{w_a^j}+\frac{P}{w_a^j}=0$$
(32)   
implies that

$$\frac{\eta }{w_a^j}=\frac{\zeta ^a\eta ^{kj}}{P/\eta }.$$
(33)   
Therefore, the constraint equation requires that

$$\frac{1}{2\pi i}_{_{i=1}^k0_i}\frac{2\eta ^{kj+1}\zeta ^{a2}}{P/\eta }\frac{d\zeta }{\zeta }=_c\frac{\eta ^{kj}\zeta ^{a2}d\zeta }{P/\eta }$$
(34)   
where $`2a2j2`$, or, put another way

$$_c\mathrm{\Omega }^{ja}=\frac{1}{2\pi i}\underset{i}{}_{0_i}\frac{2\eta \mathrm{\Omega }^{ja}}{\zeta }$$
(35)   
where

$$\mathrm{\Omega }^{ja}=\frac{\eta ^{kj}\zeta ^{a2}d\zeta }{P/\eta }$$
(36)   
is a global holomorphic 1-form. In fact, these 1-forms form a basis for the global holomorphic 1-forms on the spectral curve. There, using the residue theorem on the right-hand side of the equations shows that it is the Ercolani-Sinha constraint (16). It may be noted that the right hand side of this equation is actually zero for $`j1`$ .

Thus, the generalized Legendre transform for monopole moduli space can be derived from the twistor description of monopoles. The constraints on $`F`$ are the Ercolani-Sinha constraints. However, it should be emphasized that the Ercolani-Sinha constraints only ensure that the $`L^2`$ bundle is trivial and that the $`L^s`$ bundle is not trivial if $`s<2`$. These are necessary conditions. They are not sufficient. The additional condition requires that $`H^0(S,L^s(k2))=0`$ for $`0<s<2`$. It is possible that this condition may also be interpreted in terms of the generalized Legendre transformation.

The crucial step in calculating the constraints on $`F`$, is the derivation of the coefficient form of the patching equation by expanding the patching formula and moving the contour in the $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }^j`$ integral. Mimicking this derivation also clarifies the relationship, explained in , between the Ercolani-Sinha and Corrigan-Goddard conditions .

### 2.1 The point dyon limit

In this paper $`F`$ has been calculated from the known $`k`$-monopole symplectic form. In  Ivanov and Roček found $`F`$ for the 2-monopole metric by making a guess based on the known asymptotic metric and then verifying this guess by explicit calculation of the Kähler form. In fact, the asymptotic metric has been calculated for $`k`$ monopoles by examining the dynamics of point dyons , this approximation was confirmed in . It is a simple matter to derive this asymptotic metric from $`F`$, thereby reversing, for general $`k`$, the original derivation of $`F`$ for $`k=2`$.

The spectral curve for a single monopole located at $`(\text{Re}z,\text{Im}z,x)`$ is

$$\eta z+2x\zeta +\overline{z}\zeta ^2=0.$$
(37)   
This is the sphere in $`T^1`$ corresponding to all the lines through the monopole location. The spectral curve for $`k`$-monopoles located at well separated points $`(\text{Re}z_i,\text{Im}z_i,x_i)`$ is approximated with exponential accuracy by the product of spheres 

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}(\eta \gamma _i)=0$$
(38)   
where

$$\gamma _i=z_i2x_i\zeta \overline{z}_i\zeta ^2.$$
(39)   
The $`i`$ and $`j`$ spheres touch at two points, the two roots of $`\gamma _i=\gamma _j`$:

$$\zeta _{ij}^\pm =\frac{x_{ij}\pm \sqrt{x_{ij}^2+|z_{ij}|^2}}{\overline{z}_{ij}}$$
(40)   
where $`z_{ij}=z_iz_j`$ and $`x_{ij}=x_ix_j`$. It is known that the special contour $`c`$ must change sign under the reality transformation $`\zeta 1/\overline{\zeta }`$  and so must be a sum of contours which run from $`\zeta _{ij}^{}`$ to $`\zeta _{ij}^+=\zeta _{ji}^{}`$ on sphere $`i`$ and then from $`\zeta _{ji}^{}`$ back to $`\zeta _{ji}^+=\zeta _{ij}^{}`$ on sphere $`j`$. In order for $`F`$ to generate the asymptotic metric $`c`$ must be a sum of all such contours.

$`F`$ can be rewritten in terms of integrals on $`^1`$. It is

$$F=\underset{ij}{}_{ij}\frac{\gamma _{ij}}{\zeta ^2}𝑑\zeta \underset{i}{}\frac{1}{2\pi i}_0\frac{\gamma _i^2}{\zeta ^3}𝑑\zeta $$
(41)   
where $`\gamma _{ij}=\gamma _i\gamma _j`$ and the $`ij`$ integral is along the line running from $`\zeta _{ij}^{}`$ to $`\zeta _{ij}^+`$. In order to change the line integrals into contour integrals a $`\mathrm{log}\gamma _{ij}`$ is introduced into the integrand, thus,

$$F=\underset{ij}{}\frac{1}{2\pi i}_{ij}\frac{\gamma _{ij}\mathrm{log}\gamma _{ij}}{\zeta ^2}𝑑\zeta \underset{i}{}\frac{1}{2\pi i}_0\frac{\gamma _i^2}{\zeta ^3}𝑑\zeta $$
(42)   
where the $`ij`$ integral is now around the figure of eight contour enclosing the two zeros of $`\gamma _{ij}`$. This $`F`$ has been discussed in  and gives the correct asymptotic metric.

## 3 Conclusions

The function $`F`$ appropriate to the generalized Legendre transform construction of multimonopole metrics is calculated by a simple change of variables. This function is a contour integral over the spectral curve. The constraints on $`F`$ are precisely the integral constraints on the spectral curve required to ensure the existence of a trivial $`L^2`$ bundle. In practice these constraints are difficult to apply.

The generalized Legendre transform was originally derived from a duality transformation on an N=4 supersymmetric $`\sigma `$-model. It would be interesting to understand what relationship this $`\sigma `$-model has to monopoles.

## Acknowledgments

I have had many benificial conversations with N.S. Manton and N.M. Romão regarding spectral curves. I also thank N.J. Hitchin and P.M. Sutcliffe for useful remarks. I am grateful to the Fulbright Commission and the Royal Commission for the Exhibition of 1851 for financial support.