Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2023 September 19

= September 19 =

Identity of a large multi-volume reference work
This photograph was taken around 1974 of Robert Kaske, a professor of medieval literature at Cornell. Although his Border Collie Rex is more prominent, also in view is a bookcase filled with volumes of what is evidently a large reference work. The volumes along the top row bear letters, perhaps suggesting a dictionary or encyclopedia of some sort; it's unclear if those along the bottom row are part of the same set. Does anyone have any idea what the work(s) is or are? My first thought was the OED, although this is evidently not the case. Any suggestions would be much appreciated. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:36, 19 September 2023 (UTC)


 * The books in the top row are much taller (and generally thinner) than those in the bottom row, and the spines have substantially different typographical layouts, so I don't think these are parts of a single set. --Lambiam 08:53, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The Cambridge Medieval History in 8 volumes? The Cambridge Ancient History in 12 volumes? Sleigh (talk) 09:00, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Given that the top one takes 11 volumes to get as far as "I" (not counting the initial matter) I don't think it's anything in 8 or 12 volumes! (Though the facsimile first edition of the Britannica I have is 3 volumes: A-B, C-L and M-Z IIRC) ColinFine (talk) 10:15, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It is A New English Dictionary on Historical Principles by James Murray, which is the OED. Some copies were bound with single-letter volumes (or sub-volumes you could say), so "A" is Volume 1 Part 1, "B" Volume 1 Part 2, etc, see for example here. It may have been re-bound (eg for a library) or a special order. The original was issued in individual fascicles which the purchaser could have bound by his own book-binder, or have done by the publisher. But I have no doubt whatsoever it's the OED. DuncanHill (talk) 11:40, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You are right, found a match here . --Viennese Waltz 12:23, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Now we just need to confirm the breed of the dog. Johnbod (talk) 12:36, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It's given in the OP. --Viennese Waltz 12:39, 19 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Just to be annoying, who are the two chaps behind Kaske's head? Alansplodge (talk) 13:57, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * They look like Hadrian and Antinous to me. DuncanHill (talk) 14:04, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * And why is one wearing an adjustable-date ink stamp fastened with packing tape as a codpiece? Is that just for the photo, or was Dr Kaske getting distracted by peen in his peripheral vision? Folly Mox (talk) 14:49, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Code for beauty in the eye of the beholder --Askedonty (talk) 15:05, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Much more likely to be Castor and Pollux, as in the new pic. Johnbod (talk) 15:16, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Good call, and we find "The late Robert E. Kaske showed (1961 237-240) that a considerable number of thirteenth- and fourteenth-century texts associate Castor and Pollux with St. Francis and St. Dominic and their respective orders". DuncanHill (talk) 15:21, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Boy, what an unexpected pleasure to post a question, come back hours later, and discover a long thread that not only puts the question to rest, but also has turned to the other nagging questions in my head—namely, who is the statue of, and why does one of its subjects appear to have a modern-day fig leaf. Many thanks to all who have commented. I assume the statue is a modern copy of something much older. Googling turns up similarities, though not yet an exact match; in particular, the figure on the right appears to be in full toga (obviating the need for a second ad hoc coverup), which Google Images suggests is the exception, not the norm. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:28, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I think it's a cast of something ancient - you can see lines where sections were joined. Actually I see now that some scholars think the Prado group is actually of Orestes and Pylades, whose iconography appears to be pretty much the same as C&P. Johnbod (talk) 20:49, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Am I imagining it or is the right-hand fellow sporting a beard? If so, that might support the Hadrian hypothesis, as he was the first bearded Roman emperor. It may also explain the toga. Alansplodge (talk) 22:40, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Well at first I thought he was wearing a beard, that's what made me think Hadrian, but looking at the picture blown up I'm not so sure. Dr Kaske doesn't on first reading of our article appear to be the kind of chap you'd expect to have Hadrian and Antinous about the place, tho' of course he may have had beards in both senses of the word. DuncanHill (talk) 22:50, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * :-) Alansplodge (talk) 15:27, 20 September 2023 (UTC)



The figure on the right is not wearing a toga, or sporting a beard, and the obvious breasts indicate it is not a man at all. But it does have close similarities to the San Ildefonso Group (which is probably Orestes and Pylades rather than Castor and Pollux; [Prado]).

It is even closer to a similar group at the Louvre.[here] (Given the discussion above, the various names suggested for the Louvre's copy of the Ildefonso Group is amusing: Tirage du groupe dit "de Castor et Pollux", "d'Oreste et Pylade", "de San Ildefonso", "Antinoüs et son génie", "les Decii", "les Dioscures Odesclchhi", "deux Lares", "la Paix des Grecs", "Antinoüs et Hadrien" .)

Having gone around the houses, I am certain it is a cast of a sculpture of Orestes and Electra attributed to Stephanos (sculptor) - the one with the naked male figure and clothed female figure whose original is in Naples.[Cornell cast][Cambridge cast] Our best image (right) is not very good.

As the Cornell catalogue explains at length, the naked male figure is the Stephanos Athlete, one of many similar examples; and the female figure, with flowing chiton slipping off one shoulder, is a "moderately feminized version" of the Pylades figure in the Louvre, although I've also seen it compared to the Fréjus Aphrodite. Theramin (talk) 00:07, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Great - sorted, thanks. Johnbod (talk) 00:53, 21 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Again, thanks very much to all who chimed in. As with the OED above, what a treat it is to ask a question and see such a thoughtful and detailed discussion, not to mention a bang-on answer. The photograph on the left (just now pulled from Flickr) looks to be a photograph of the original in Naples. But more interesting than the original is 's finding of a cast held by Cornell, given that Kaske taught there. The two versions are almost certainly different (unless Kaske's copy was significantly patched up and refined), but it begs the question of whether there is a relationship between the two. There must be a Kaske alum out there who knows... --Usernameunique (talk) 05:08, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

"Higher of W.T. or M.T."
The short ton, M.T., is 2,000 pounds (907.2 kilograms).

The long ton, or W.T., is 2,240 pounds (1,016.0 kilograms).

The long ton is approximately 1.12 times larger than the short ton.

This price list contains the following prices:

Row 1 and 2 makes perfect sense. $48.44 / $42.67 = 1.135, which is close enough to 1.12.

But I'm having trouble understanding row 3.

My best interpretation of this phrase is: "for a load that weights X long tons and Y short tons, we will charge you based on the larger number between X and Y".

But this interpretation makes no sense, because by definition Y = 1.12 * X. Y will always be greater than X. So I have no valid interpretation of the phrase "Higher of W.T. or M.T." Liberté2 (talk) 23:52, 19 September 2023 (UTC)


 * According to the definitions given in the docunent, MT refers to cargo measured by volume and estimated as 1000 kg per cubic meter while WT refers to cargo actually weighed. This would seem to mean that cargos that take up a lot of space with little weight would be charged by volume while small, dense cargos would be charged by actual weight. Large items are a hassle to move even if they weigh little and dense items are a hassle even if they are small. Either way the extra hassle is a reason to charge more.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 05:26, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The WP article for M.T. is shipping ton (or "measurement ton"). The price list uses the American definition. It also states that W.T. (presumably "weight ton") is given in metric tons. --Wrongfilter (talk) 08:02, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much. That makes perfect sense.
 * When faced with two unknown and unclear abbreviations, I erroneously googled it and went with the first result. Instead I should have searched the document itself, or other related documents, for the provided definition. Liberté2 (talk) 18:21, 20 September 2023 (UTC)