Humanities desk
< April 7	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 9 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

April 8

adagio in g minor instrumentation

I have this recording containing Adagio in G minor by the Orpheus Chamber Orchestra and also a score which I (as an amateur) have been studying. First, especially because of the provenance, I assume there may be other editions of the score which would differ in detail or maybe a lot? Second, is it possible to determine the orchestral parts in this particular performance? And third, what I'd really like to know, is whether the performance includes a cello, because after many listenings I can't hear it. Perhaps it is very similar to the (outstanding!) organ? (BTW, I don't have the album cover.) --Halcatalyst (talk) 00:08, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am by no means an expert, but I don't hear any of the deep strings I associate with a cello (or bass), in that brief clip. The strings I heard sound like maybe violin and/or viola. StuRat (talk) 05:32, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Go to the web site of the International Music Score Library Project. It's set up as a wiki and run by volunteers. You can explore their holdings (if the work's scores are in public domain), and under "Participate" there are various help functions. Your query is specific enough that it would probably require you to register on the site (in my experience it's legit) and start a discussion. Alternatively you can identify knowledgeable participants by their activity on related discussions and approach them individually. Another source would be the classical music department of your state's university system (see its website). The department is likely to have a scores library and staff who can help you find scores with alternative orchestrations and recordings of those. -- Deborahjay (talk) 07:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two-on-one duels?

Was there (or can there be) a duel between one besmirched guy and two besmirchers? If it has to be two, what do we call the same sort of thing (nice and cordial-like, not barfights) when/if it does happen with three? InedibleHulk (talk) 08:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article on truel. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 08:34, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Not sure how I overlooked it. Thanks! InedibleHulk (talk) 09:41, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Though that's about Triple Threat, every-man-for-himself rules. Close! InedibleHulk (talk) 09:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget the Polish version, where the three are in a straight line. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The term truel seems to apply to the case where it's three people - but all-against-all. I think our OP is asking about the two-against-one case. SteveBaker (talk) 16:38, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In that scenario, it's really just a mini-firing squad. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:49, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all - in a firing squad, the victim is rarely granted a loaded pistol. SteveBaker (talk) 22:17, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he only "thinks" it's loaded. In any case, in the two-on-one scenario, how could the one guy survive? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:16, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You know how sometimes people insult people's Polish great-grandparents, but before justice can be done, one of them realizes they're on the Internet and the other says something about dodging a bullet? It's a bit like that. But the math link below goes way deeper. Definitely handicapped, but far from doomed. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:01, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a general word, as far as I know, but double-team comes close. In tennis, that set up would be "Canadian doubles". Smurrayinchester 13:12, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll search more later, in the mean time, this is a good excuse to mention the famous Sandbar_Fight, in case anyone is interested in many-one one fights that are related to duels. (1-1 duel started, many ganged up on Bowie after, he beat them all). SemanticMantis (talk) 14:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, did you know there was whole mathematical theory of dueling?! It's a form of combat modeling. Here's a paper paper about the two-on-one case [1]. Here's a (freely accessible) one on many-on-one duels [2], and of course some times you want to consider this many-on-one in mountainous terrain [3]. Note the funding sources, journal names, and affiliations of the authors, this is real combat modeling. Still no better names though. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an account of a historical two-on-one duel [4]. Everything I'm seeing just calls it "Two-on-one" or "Two-against one". I think "Canadian Doubles Duel" has a nice ring to it, but maybe that's insensitive to Canadians... SemanticMantis (talk) 15:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The book "Dueling in Charleston: Violence Refined in the Holy City" by J. Grahame Long, describes a situation where one man entered into a quarrel with two others - but in that case the (slightly) fairer approach of fighting two consecutive duels was agreed. Benjamin Allston was set to fight two consecutive duels against Dr.Charles Atkins and Edward Cuthbert. But so acrimonious was the situation that the seconds that had been nominated to officiate at the event came close to dueling themselves. Mercifully, all negotiations as to the format of the duel were abandoned and everyone simply gave up on the idea. SteveBaker (talk) 16:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does Mexican standoff help any? --Jayron 32 17:30, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A little bit, but that's much like a truel, just without any action. That Sandbar Fight seemed fun, but dirty. Same with Carmack, sort of a suckerpunch. That Kress theory is probably interesting, if you can follow the math. I tried, and failed. It's what I'm talking about, though. Good stories, though, and close, so thanks to all. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:01, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did feudalism exist in early 19th century Britain?

Did feudalism exist during that time? Did peasants work for Mr Darcy in Pride and Prejudice? 140.254.70.33 (talk) 12:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not in any real way. There's some debate on if true feudalism ever existed in Britain (see bastard feudalism) and there's probably some people who will argue that certain economic relationships in 19th century Britain represented a sort of quasi-feudalism, or something like wage slavery. But no, any person who worked for the Darcies would have been laborers who were compensated for their labor with wages and services in kind (such as room and board) and there were no serfs in Britain in the 19th century. The article Social structure of the United Kingdom covers mostly the 20th and 21st century, but should give you an idea on what it was like in Britain even in the 19th century. --Jayron 32 12:14, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, feudalism as a total social system was gone centuries before, although there were a very few outliers. According to History of serfdom, some Scottish coalminers remained serfs until 1799 (so just before the 19th C), and Copyhold (a contract that bound a family to work a patch of land for a lord - semi-feudalism, if you like) wasn't totally abolished until 1922 - although by then, the copyholders weren't seriously expected to serve the lord; effectively, they just paid rent in lieu of services. Sark - not directly a part of the UK, but a crown dependency owned by the Crown in the English Channel - is a bit of an outlier, and was feudal right up until 2008. Smurrayinchester 12:54, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think many of those outliers weren't really proper feudalism. As you not, copyholds were not enforced as feudal relationships in any meaningful sense; they operated as rental agreements. Most of these were feudalism-in-name-only and historical curiosities, not really useful in understanding the socioeconomic relationships present in England during the times covered by Jane Austen's works. --Jayron 32 13:13, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was just about to add the sentence below. Smurrayinchester 13:16, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Scottish coal miners were the last cases in the UK which were pretty much feudalism; in addition to the labour requirements, the miners weren't permitted to leave without the consent of the landowner. Theoretically, the status wasn't automatically inherited, only if parents chose to send their child into coalmining, but practically it was, as in most mining areas there was no realistic alternative employment for a child. Warofdreams talk 22:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) Darcy, incidentally, would almost certainly have had tenant farmers, who were pretty free (but might have suffered if he imposed especially strict conditions in his contracts). Smurrayinchester 13:16, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It all depends on what you mean. The two sentences of the OP are not entirely congruent. Feudalism as understood in Medieval England had long gone, but as the term is used colloquially today, then yes to a certain extent the relationships were what we might now see as feudal. The peasants did indeed work for Mr Darcy, even if they didn't think of themselves as peasants, but agricultural labourers. One of the marks of the English gentry and aristocracy was that their wealth rested on land (i.e. their income was the result of their farm holdings) rather than grubby trade. Tied cottages ensured that the land-owners held control over their tenants, and the Enclosures solidified it. Look what happened to the Tolpuddle Martyrs when they tried to organise. Until the founding of the welfare state, the squire in the big house was expected to look out for and take care of his tenants - a responsibility unevenly executed, but based on noblesse oblige, which dates back to the formal links of feudal times. And as for literary evidence of psychological and social inter-dependence, consider Jane Eyre. She finally marries Mr Rochester, and tells the old family retainer who has stuck around for decades. John "was an old servant, and had known his master when he was the cadet of the house, therefore, he often gave him his Christian name)--"I knew what Mr. Edward would do; and I was certain he would not wait long neither: and he's done right, for aught I know. I wish you joy, Miss!" and he politely pulled his forelock." I submit that you can't get more feudal - in the informal sense - than forelock-tugging. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 13:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is the origin and purpose of "forelock tugging?" In movies and plays it looks rather like a military salute. Was a long head of hair required of serfs? (They might go bald or wanted a short haircut). Was it exclusively British? Edison (talk) 18:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To a degree, it still exists. Friends of mine in the Sussex (England) are both farm workers in the employ of a local land owner (Lord somebody-or-other - I forget who). They are provided with a Tied cottage and a Company car...and as a result of the fact that they pay no rent or property taxes and have no car loan - their rate of pay is surprisingly low - yet they live a good life (for farm workers). I'm not sure they'd like to be called "peasants" or describe their situation as "feudal" - but it's hard to see the practical difference. SteveBaker (talk) 16:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the big difference is that any time they have had enough they can hand in their notice and leave. The key factor in feudalism was the element of ownership: a feudal tenant did not have the freedom to leave their land or their job without the lord's agreement. 217.44.50.87 (talk) 17:41, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Formally, the connection between land and service is the defining feature of manorialism; that is the peasants who work the land are tied to it and their labor is owned by the Lord of the Manor. Formally, feudalism doesn't require manorialism, as Feudalism is simply the notion that the Sovereign is the only owner in a nation with Allodial title to the land, and he grants rights to portions of that land in exchange for Military service. That is "If you will agree to fight for me in wars, I'll let you have the right to the financial benefit of some portion of land". That's feudalism. Manorialism is the source of that "financial benefit", but it doesn't have to be. It was almost universally, but it isn't itself feudalism, which was the "military service tied to land rights" thing. --Jayron 32 18:16, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's an opinion, and our article on feudalism clearly describes the alternative view, that the term encompasses manorialism and the role of the clergy. Warofdreams talk 22:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It absolutely does encompass all of those things. And then again, maybe it doesn't. Depends on how you define your terms before you start using them. To encompass something doesn't make the thing encompassed irrelevent or not a thing. I encompass my heart; but my that does not make my heart not a thing unto itself. --Jayron 32 02:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Unchain My Heart. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:19, 9 April 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Here's a reference: "In the countryside, although there were still people called lords, much of feudalism disappeared by the time of the revolution that ended the remnants of feudalism in England in the seventeenth century. Tenants now leased their land and owed no feudal services. Lords were now landlords who received rents from a commercial relationship with the tenants". You can read the rest for yourself, see: Sherman, Howard J et al (7th Edition: 2015), Economics: An Introduction to Traditional and Progressive Views, Routledge ISBN 978-0-7656-1668-5 (p. 50). Alansplodge (talk) 11:19, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are there health insurance companies in Britain?

Do they exist? Do people actually pay into it? 140.254.70.33 (talk) 12:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, like AXA and Aviva. A lot of people have a taxable benefit through their company which provides them with private health cover, and many people use it to avoid queues at NHS facilities. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:32, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bupa is probably the best known. In my experience it's not common to have health insurance in the UK except as an employment perk. As with many types of insurance, it is often cheaper to pay if you want private health care, rather than keep paying insurers just in case.--Phil Holmes (talk) 12:53, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I had BUPA coverage (provided by my job) when I last worked in the UK. For little stuff, it was quicker and easier to use my NHS family doctor - less paperwork, closer to home, etc. But when I had a serious health issue, being able to "avoid the queue" by going through to a private hospital was definitely worthwhile. From the perspective of my employer, that was exactly their goal - by having me get treated faster, I was back to work sooner - and that was a net gain for them. SteveBaker (talk) 16:14, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To pay or not to pay. The right choice depends on your luck. --Llaanngg (talk) 15:28, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Plugged nickel

The phrase "not worth a plugged nickel" is very common, but what is a plugged nickel (or plug nickel)? I found a great explanation at wikt:plug nickel involving coins with a silver insert... except I don't see sources or details and I'm not finding confirmatory information on the Web ... I would worry there could be a phony explanation floating around. Still, ask.com (not exactly a reliable source) says the phrase dates to the 1880s, and the wiktionary thing says that nickels were "originally" one or three cents (!) which is somewhat compatible with mention of a post Civil War three cent coin under nickel. So maybe it's something from around then? Wnt (talk) 17:40, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See here. Plugging is a form of counterfeiting where a "plug" of precious metal is removed from the coin, the coin is filled in with a base metal. Nickels are cheap coins anyways, so a plugged nickel is almost literally worthless. --Jayron 32 18:06, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayron32: Thanks - I put that reference into Methods of coin debasement, which I've made the target of the former redlinks I had above. Wnt (talk) 21:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another variation is "Don't take any wooden nickels". StuRat (talk) 18:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We do have an article on Wooden nickel -- that's a bit different. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "not worth a plugged nickel" is very common ^{[citation needed]}. I assume you mean very common in the US, never heard it in English. 213.105.166.119 (talk) 00:27, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you? There's no coin called a "nickel" there. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:59, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Forelocks

Forelock pulling, touching, or tugging deserves its own section. I can find only two relevant citations in the OED (not the example I quoted from Jane Eyre above). One is from the sociologist Harriet Martineau's 1834 Illustrations of Political Economy (which outsold Dickens, apparently, and yet is still a redlink). She has a whole chapter on the "Upshot of Feudalism", but the forelock isn't there; it's in "Observing at Hand":

A tribe of little children had gathered round Mrs White's windows before Letitia and Therese arrived at the shop; the reason of which was that the grocery and drapery goods were disposed in a new style of elegance in honour of her ladyship. [...] The little things could not be persuaded to move off, even when White, who was on the watch, bustled about to make a clear path for the lady. There was plenty of bobbing from the girls, and pulling of forelocks from the boys....

"Bobbing" must mean "curtesying", which just emphasises the gendered nature of forelock-tugging. I've seen it speculated in current internet sources that it was a gesture of respect equivalent to the doffing of one's hat, by those who wore no head-covering. From there we venture into the semiotics of the flat cap versus the top hat, where I dare not stray: I know my place.

The other OED citation is from a novel co-written by James Rice and Walter Besant, brother-in-law to Annie Besant. The 1878 novel is entitled By Celia’s Arbour: A tale of Portsmouth town (NB arbour, not ardour, though I suppose the former might be a euphemism).

We took our sculls and sails from the shop, and rigged our craft. [...] Everybody knew us on the beach, the boatmen, the old sailors, and the sailors' wives who were out with the children because the weather was so fine, all had a word to say to the Captain, touching their forelocks by way of preface.

So again: greeting(helloo), respect, social superiority. Can anyone find anything more definitive? A discussion in Notes and Queries by an aged rural clergyman on the decline of manners in the lower orders, and how the youth no longer respect the old, as evidenced by the lack of forelock-pulling in his Loamshire parish? Or perhaps something properly dry and mid-C20 academic, from literature or history? Carbon Caryatid (talk) 20:40, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Entirely anecdotal, but as a small boy in the mid-1960s, I wore a school cap. There was an elderly man at our church, who my mother thought was a "proper gentleman" (he had held some exalted office in the Indian Raj) and I was instructed that when we met him in the street, I was to pinch the peak of my cap as a mark of respect. Sure enough, the esteemed Mr Brown would also touch the brim of his Homberg hat and nod slightly whenever we met. I have always assumed that pulling the forelock was what one might have done instead if one was caught without a hat, but it certainly belongs to a bygone age. Alansplodge (talk) 20:55, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I found Hat tip but no mention of forelocks. Alansplodge (talk) 21:01, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

this web page says "Those without a hat or cap signalled respect by touching or tugging their forelocks. It is a kind of salute. To raise one's cap or hat, or at any rate to touch its brim, is an appropriate gesture of greeting to friends, acquaintances, and even strangers." Alansplodge (talk) 21:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure what your actual question is -- are you asking if it means what you think it means? If so, then yes. Here's a raft of usages from ye olden days. Henry ^Flower 21:14, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The questions above from Edison: "What is the origin and purpose of "forelock tugging?" In movies and plays it looks rather like a military salute. Was a long head of hair required of serfs? (They might go bald or wanted a short haircut). Was it exclusively British?" If I were to extend this, I might ask, what was the geographical spread of this gesture, and when did it die out? And, as I intimated, it seems odd that while it is easy to find usage examples, it hasn't been straightforward to find thorough examinations of the habit. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 21:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is briefly mentioned at Salute#Greeting. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:37, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possibly a stale joke or metaphor? If someone salutes by touching the knuckles to the forehead as if tipping an imaginary hat, it looks about the same as if they were tugging on a forelock of hair. Many men of age, or with short haircuts, or who slicked back the hair with pomade didn't even have such "forelocks." Similarly someone once said he saw another person in his car "inspecting the ceiling liner." Getting looks of noncomprehension, he mimed tossing the head back with the hand in front of the lips, as if tossing back a shot of liquor. Edison (talk) 16:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Macho Camacho, Carbon Caryatid. μηδείς (talk) 21:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what the Puerto Rican boxer has to do with it - there's no mention of forelocks in his article. Yes, forelock-tugging has now become a literary (rather than a gestural) metaphor for servility, but it was once a very real thing. It has long disappeared. It would be interesting to find some solid sources about it (rather than more fictional examples). Carbon Caryatid (talk) 00:33, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One of the notable Portals? Justin Welby's mother

It has recently been reported that Justin Welby's father was not who he thought he was. His mother was Jane Gillian Portal, now Lady Williams of Elvel. My question is this: is Jane Gillian Portal related to any of the notable Portals, such as the Portal Baronets or Charles Portal of the RAF? DuncanHill (talk) 22:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

She was the daughter of Lt.-Col. Gervas Edward Portal (1890-1961) and the granddaughter of Edward Robert Portal (1854-1953). Air Marshal Charles Frederick Algernon Portal, 1st and last Viscount Portal of Hungerford was Jane's uncle, but from Edward's second marriage (a half-uncle?). Another "half-uncle" was Sir Reginald Henry Portal (1894-1983) who was a naval pilot in the First World War and a battleship captain in the Second, retiring as an admiral in 1953. Alansplodge (talk) 10:16, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jane's grandmother Rose Leslie Napier was the granddaughter of Lt.-Gen. Sir William Francis Patrick Napier, who has a Wikipedia article: William Francis Patrick Napier. Alansplodge (talk) 10:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 11:03, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're most welcome. Justin didn't follow in the family footsteps did he? Alansplodge (talk) 16:09, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, though I have to say I'd rather have an admiral in the family than an archbishop. DuncanHill (talk) 20:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, one can't even trust archbishops to have the proper ancestors these days. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:42, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can choose your friends but.... Alansplodge (talk) 22:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, having an admiral in the family is a lot less embarrassing than having an archbishop, and much easier to explain. DuncanHill (talk) 23:52, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]