Humanities desk
< August 2	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 4 >

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

August 3

Lord Camelford's body

Thomas Pitt, 2nd Baron Camelford wanted to be buried on the Île Saint-Pierre in Switzerland, but he ended up at St Anne's, Soho, and despite the efforts of his friend Devereux, there he remained. According to Tolstoy, Nikolai (1978). The Half-Mad Lord - Thomas Pitt, 2nd Baron Camelford. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. p. 194. ISBN 0-03-047261-X. he should still (in 1978) be there, towards the eastern end of the north vault. Our article on him however says his body "disappeared without explanation. This became the object of humour, with wits merrily quipping What has become of Lord Camelford's body?, sourced (at least the disappearence) to "The Passing Parade – John Doremus. Evenings with George Illich, Radio 2CH, 20:40 30 November 2009". So - did it disappear ant Tolstoy missed it? Or is it still there, beneath the rebuilt church, or were the vaults excavated during the reconstruction in the 1990s? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 00:42, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently Charles Reade's question "What Has Become of Lord Camelford's Body?" of 1876 was answered and he published again in 1884 stating "he had been informed that the coffin was still there"[1]. Can't find Reade's 1884 piece, J. H. Cardwell's 1910 "still somewhere in the North Vault, no one knows where" (OCLC 1166891619) nor the 1913 Soho Monthly Paper, but various assertions that the coffin with or without covering fish basket is still there 1877 1895 1906 1921. fiveby(zero) 02:17, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Crypts of London has: Beneath the church was the empty south vault, together with the north vault and the chancel vault, both of which had been crushed by landmines and seriously affected by water seepage. In 1974 part of the roof of the north vault collapsed...It was found that all the coffins were squashed together but 178 still had their breastplates. Exhumation began on 27 November 1987 and ended on 19 March 1988, during which 152 deteriorated lead coffins, twenty-six dilapidated wood coffins and around 4,500 skeletons were removed to the City of London Cemetery...There was much press publicity before the project began due to the possibility of finding the remains of the eccentric Lord Camelford, a young Regency rake who had died in a duel. He had been interred in the north vault on 17 March 1804, but no trace of him was found. Johnson, Malcolm (2013). Crypts of London (ebook ed.). New York: The History Press. pp. 178–9. OCLC 867926163. fiveby(zero) 03:55, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like there were plans for an autopsy: Barker, Felix (January 20, 1986). "Soho's roaring boy: was he a secret agent?". Evening Standard. Rogers, Byron (March 23, 1986). "Digging up the truth?". Sunday Telegraph. fiveby(zero) 04:37, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Landmines? German bombs, I could believe, but who plants landmines in a London church? Card Zero (talk) 07:24, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, landmines. The term was applied to Parachute mines which were naval mines dropped by parachute. See the end of ¶4 in §Luftwaffe where it is referenced by Rattigan (2005). On a personal note, my mother was a schoolgirl in Coventry during the blitz and on one occasion a landmine fell in her road but the parachute was caught in a tree and it didn't explode. She was in the vicinity at the time and if it had have detonated she would probably been killed. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:06, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They were twice the size of the largest conventional bombs used during the Blitz, so any very large explosion was attributed to them. Alansplodge (talk) 11:21, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"any very large explosion was attributed to them" – that may well be true, but I suspect that the people that had actual experience of them both as UXBs and as explosions would have a pretty good idea. The fact that the Army were advised to seek naval help in defusing them lends credence to contemporary reports. Still at this distance with nearly all the people concerned dead we have to rely on written accounts so you could be right. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 13:44, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right. Many had long time delay fuzes which may have caused more disruption than the actual explosion. Alansplodge (talk) 13:51, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find that Tolstoy published anything post non-exhumation, nor Elizabeth Sparrow her planned biography. Maybe in Secret service : British agents in France, 1792-1815 with the "absolute, infallible proof...that he was involved in a counter-revolutionary movement abroad" and further speculation? fiveby(zero) 15:04, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, have requested that through the library. Would buy it secondhand but prices are too high. DuncanHill (talk) 10:55, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hope i didn't send you on a wild goose chase, just noticed "Secret Service under Pitt's Administrations, 1792–1806"JSTOR 24423880 with no mention of Thomas and none in reviews of the book. She notes he was the reason for her earlier Alien Office papers but maybe dropped the theories altogether? fiveby(zero) 16:02, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

La Vie de Félix et Marie Bracquemond

Resolved

Hello, I am looking for a copy (either online or offline in published form) of an unpublished short biography titled La Vie de Félix et Marie Bracquemond by Marie Bracquemond's son, Pierre Bracquemond. Many of the writers who have published books and articles about Bracquemond refer to it, but I'm curious where they are finding it to draw from in their work, as I would also like to look at it. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 02:30, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Excerpts in Bouillon, Jean-Paul; Kane, Elizabeth (1984). "Marie Bracquemond". Woman's Art Journal. 5 (2). JSTOR 1357962. was all i could find for the Birth year of Marie Bracquemond. fiveby(zero) 03:10, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Any idea where these people are finding the original? Would it be held by an academic or art institution, such as papers or archives? Viriditas (talk) 03:37, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have that article. Footnote nine says the manuscript is in a private collection in Paris. Forgive me, but it’s 2023 now, and nobody has bothered to make it available to researchers? Viriditas (talk) 03:53, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

fr:Jean-Paul Bouillon has more snippets in "An Artistic Collaboration: Bracquemond and Baron Vitta" JSTOR 25159646. And the most complete description: See Pierre Bracquemond's MS. "Vie de Felix et Marie Bracquemond," April 23, 1925, 145 pages, private collection, Paris. While the manuscript is not accurate for the early periods and is inaccurate on the dates of specific works, it contains numerous firsthand references for the years Pierre Bracquemond (who was born in 1870) spent with his parents until their deaths in 1914 and 1916. fiveby(zero) 05:16, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, as that answers my question. Viriditas (talk) 05:55, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15th-century green French wigs

I'm intrigued by the two characters at the front of this illustration. The one on the right is dressed all in green, including green shoes and green hair. We can see that this is a wig, because the one on the left has taken his green wig off and is holding it. Their coats also have hairy green fringes. What are their roles, why are they dressed in such a peculiar way? I guess they're footmen, but that doesn't explain all the green hair. I'm reasonably familiar with the fashion of the 15th century - the event is actually 14th century but I think we can rely on old paintings to anachronistically reflect the fashion the painter was familiar with - isn't this about a hundred years too early for the revival of wigs? Card Zero (talk) 09:25, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have a feeling that this is more about the colors available to the painter than the actual livery colors of the tunic, tights, and wigs of men guiding the horse litter. I believe it is meant to indicate fancy dress of relatively high status. The Emperor was suffering from gout and needed a horse litter since it was the least bumpy mode of transport available at the time. I gleaned this from this contemporary source; https://www.hs-augsburg.de/~harsch/gallica/Chronologie/14siecle/Memoire/mem_text.html which had Google Translate throwing fits. Scroll down for more images of green and red costumes. Abductive (reasoning) 10:08, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To me, the thing that the fellow on the left is holding looks more like a headscarf than a wig. Why would he take off a wig? Taking off a hat or similar is a sign of respect, but a wig? Also, he has a full head of natural hair, whereas wigs would rather go with a shaven head, wouldn't they? --Wrongfilter (talk) 10:23, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point: one element of late medieval fashion was the detached hood (like a ski mask). Perhaps what I'm seeing here is a fabric used for their coats and hoods, which happens to be painted similarly to hair - or was deliberately made to be similar to hair, since the headgear of the guy on the right has tresses and a parting. Card Zero (talk) 10:36, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a chaperon like this one, which in "the middle of the 15th century... had become common wear for males in the upper and middle classes". The chap on the left is showing what our article calls a "padded circular bourrelet" or headband. The hanging cloth part is called a "tippet or liripipe". Alansplodge (talk) 11:12, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

... because of course it is. Plausible! This explains the hoop-like component of the one being held. My intrigue is satisfied.

Resolved

Card Zero (talk) 12:46, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, I just Googled "15th century hat" and looked through the image results. Alansplodge (talk) 13:47, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In case the green is not merely a limited artist's palette, it made me think of Green man and Wild man (autotranslate of French version here). Cf this painting from 1475 Germany. Not sure if any green man connection re January 3, 1378 in Paris though. Were green folk part of the Saint Genevieve tradition at all? 70.67.193.176 (talk) 16:43, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The notion of such whiffler as explained in the Green man article might make sense. Looking full view at our heading green man he is probably about to take his position on the other side of the leading horse. The train is already halted if the other driver - I'm uncertain regarding the depiction - is a that precise moment inviting or saluting the ~~king~~ emperor. Thus his partner is not one of those who will be helping the king- Emperor step out of the litter. --Askedonty (talk) 17:17, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you wondered, the Emperor in the picture is emperor of all this. (But only visiting France.) Card Zero (talk) 18:30, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As a caricaturist emeritus what I was wondering about is merely the incredible stability of the ethnical types those paintings are allowing us to consider throughout the ages. --Askedonty (talk) 18:36, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Much cloning went on, because of pattern books, as mentioned here. We lack an article on these (our article pattern book is about 19th century architects). Card Zero (talk) 18:59, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That picture is of a wedding, which makes it charivari. This custom (in its early form as a wedding celebration) involved people dressing up in greenery as wild men, as at the tragic Bal des Ardents, where the young Charles VI, the son of Charles V of France who provided the litter for Holy Roman Emperor Charles IV in the first picture, was among the dancers. This is an old wedding custom with presumably pagan roots. The possibility did cross my mind, though, I must admit, just because the guy is so very green. Card Zero (talk) 17:31, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of richest Americans in history

I'm confused. How come the richest American in history is Rockefeller? His net worth is $41 billion adjusted to 2022. Elon Musk's net worth is currently $239 billion in 2023. If anything, the richest American ever in history should be Elon Musk. What am I missing? 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:F0BC:29A3:B1EA:9563 (talk) 20:09, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to this Rockefeller peaked at $318 billion (adjusted to 2007). -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 21:35, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I read once that Rockefeller was worth 1% of the entire United States, in current terms that puts him at about twice Musk. Abductive (reasoning) 06:17, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That $318 billion figure is apparently not an inflation adjustment to 2007, but adjusted by "GDP percentage" (as stated in the source: "But the richest man in the entire history is John Rockefeller, if we measure its status as a percentage of U.S. GDP."). So who was the richest person when only adjusting for inflation, not for GDP percentage? Roentgenium111 (talk) 13:35, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]