Category: Naming Things

JF Ptak Science Books   Post 2723

In the occasionally speedy and occasionally not-speedy world of chess, it may sometimes be necessary to take speedy-or-not notes, and one attempt to address this need was made by Herbert E. Salzer in his non-mysteriously titled Chess Shorthand (1971).  Chess notation–like algebraic notation (in different iterations), English notation, ICCF notation, and so on–can reach back hundreds of years. Even the shorthand approach tried out here in mathematician Salzer’s short work dips back into the 19th century (‘Shorthand Notation” by M. Barnard, a short entry in  Chess Player’s Annual and Club Directory, 1893-94 by Mr and Mrs T.B. Rowland, London, 1893). But the Salzer work is really pretty interesting, and so I thought to at least surface the work.

The thing is is that Salzer’s work has a certain autonomous, musical, simple splendor to it–that or it has the feel of a cipher (or a double cipher). Here’s an example:\
On second thought a shorthand for chess at first (or second) blush doesn’t really seem terribly necessary, given the brevity of the notation that already exists or existed. The author though is convinced that such an effort was needed, or at least wanted the intellectual exercise of creating such a thing, and provides in twelve packed pages the foundations of recording chess moves quickly, if not inconveniently. The notation the author creates reminds me somewhat of Gregg shorthand, but not as much as alien written communication system, being mostly soft lines and bumps. More striking is that as soon as these abbreviated symbols are introduced, the abbreviations’ abbreviations appear. In the attempt to make things less complicated this system may complicate things—maybe not, because I really can’t tell. Perhaps if you became fluid and fluent in the new symbolic language the Salzer system becomes a godsend, or perhaps not. I can appreciate the thinking and the work, and the interesting road that the author took to his shortcut, but I’ve never been good at those, once taking a “shortcut” to a location directly south of me and finally getting to it 3x-longer than usual, getting to the place going north. All that said, I respect this work, though I really don’t understand it–in a certain way Mr. Salzer created a work of art in creating his writing system. 

 

 

JF Ptak Science Books  Post 2719

 “Euery Cloud engenders not a Storme.”–Shakespeare, Henry VI, Pt. 3 (1623) v. iii. 10

 “Vapour, previously unseen, makes its appearance as cloud, or mist, or fog.”–T. H. Huxley Physiogr. (ed. 2) 40  

“But Howard gives us with his clearer mind
The gain of lessons new to all mankind;
That which no hand can reach, no hand can clasp,
He first has gain’d, first held with mental grasp.
Defin’d the doubtful, fix’d its limit-line,
And named it fitly.—Be the honour thine!
As clouds ascend, are folded, scatter, fall,
Let the world think of thee who taught it all.”–Goethe, “Howards Ehrengedächtnis”, 1821

The great cloud pioneer Luke Howard (1772-1864) first published on his cloud classifications in his papers “On the Modifications of Clouds and on the Principles of their Production Suspension and Destruction being the Substance of an Essay read before the Askesian¹ Society in the Session 1802-3″ in 1803, launching him from general normal obscurity into the ranks of the internationally known. He had done what Aristotle and many others down the years hadn’t–classified (his “Modifications” of the title of his 11k-word effort) the moving mountains in the sky, making him a Linnaeus/Godfather of clouds, his nomenclature quickly adopted worldwide. 

Howard, a pharmacist/chemist/meteorologist² invoked a Latin nomenclature for his classification, which was a very smart idea, as Latin was already Latin (as it were) and didn’t need to face the difficulties and obstructions of being translated into other languages, as was the case with the problematic Lamarckian system introduced just a year earlier which was phrased out in French and which encountered many problems in translation. Howard’s universal nomenclature and his creative and poetic descriptions following deep study and endless sketches³ created a static environment from what was seen as an impossibly dynamic flow of changes in the structure of clouds.

According to the Dictionary of Scientific Biography (the entry written by Richard Hambyn, the only person to write a book on Howard’s naming of clouds), “…he proposed that every cloud belonged to one of three principal families, to which he had given the Latin names: cirrus (meaning “fiber” or “hair”), cumulus (“heap” or “pile”), and stratus (“layer” or “sheet”). In recognition of the essential instability of clouds, Howard also introduced a sequence of intermediate and compound modifications, such as cirrostratus and stratocumulus, in order to accommodate the regular transitions occurring between the cloud types…”

I’ve written about Howard elsewhere on this blog, and he comes back to me today for his odd place in the realm of highly-visual-works-published-without-illustration, or at least the first German language treatment of his work appears so, without benefit of a single image, as with the first of the three iterations of this paper in 1803 in the Philosophical Magazine. (It was in the second paper of 1803 that three images of clouds first appeared.) The paper appeared very quickly in Germany, published as “Ueber die Modification der Wolken” in 23pp in the November 1805 issue (volume 21) of the Annalen der Physik, though without any illustration. (Howard’s “Versuch einer Naturgeschichte und Physik der Wolken” is published in the Annalen in 1815 also without an image, as do three of his other papers; the lone exception is one engraving illustrating his paper on waterspouts in volume 57.)  I wonder why the article is unembellished–it is almost in a sense a defeat of the classifying idea, not to have some sort of visual reference for the new taxonomy. Perhaps it was a rush to publish, though if that were the case a return to the paper with engravings in a later issue would have been a good idea. In any event, it was a work that demanded pictures, and even though Howard was an accomplished cloud artist, there was little of that lovely work seen until the “third edition” of his essay appeared in 1832. Aside from the historic difficulty of rendering clouds in art, I do not know why it was the case that the earliest works on clouds passed by largely unillustrated,

No doubt there is room for a work on papers written on highly-visual ideas that should’ve been illustrated but weren’t–that’s partially how I cam to write this post to begin with, being thwarted by a very early call by Heinrich Brandes in the Annalen der Physik  (1816, noted by Gerald R. North in the Encyclopedia of Atmospheric Sciences, p. 290) for a system of making weather maps, but published without an example. And in pursuing that I came upon Heinrich Wilhem Dove’s paper “Ueber Barometriche Minima” in the Annalen  for 1828 on barometric pressure and the wind (where the wind seems to do a 360 turn generated by falling  pressure), the cartographic elements of which were said to be illustrated on a folding engraved plate and though the symbols are there in a pre-non-representational-art sorta way, the map part wasn’t….I mean, there’s just no “amp” to the map, except for a scant reference to a city, and that’s it. Anyway, it is a curious category that I’d rather read about than research. 

Here’s the unusual Dove illustration:

Images or no, the work by Howard was immortalized by Goethe, who admired and respected the man, painting clouds in poetry in 1817:

“To find yourself in the infinite,

You must distinguish and then combine;
Therefore my winged song thanks
The man who distinguished cloud from cloud.”

…and then proceeded to describe the main four (of the seven) main cloud types described by Howard:

“STRATUS

When o’er the silent bosom of the sea
The cold mist hangs like a stretch’d canopy;
And the moon, mingling there her shadowy beams,
A spirit, fashioning other spirits seems;
We feel, in moments pure and bright as this,
The joy of innocence, the thrill of bliss.
Then towering up in the darkening mountain’s side,
And spreading as it rolls its curtains wide,
It mantles round the mid-way height, and there
It sinks in water-drops, or soars in air.

CUMULUS

Still soaring, as if some celestial call
Impell’d it to yon heaven’s sublimest hall;
High as the clouds, in pomp and power arrayed,
Enshrined in strength, in majesty displayed;
All the soul’s secret thoughts it seems to move,
Beneath it trembles, while it frowns above.

CIRRUS

And higher, higher yet the vapors roll:
Triumph is the noblest impulse of the soul!
Then like a lamb whose silvery robes are shed,
The fleecy piles dissolved in dew drops spread;
Or gently waft to the realms of rest,
Find a sweet welcome in the Father’s breast.

NIMBUS

Now downwards by the world’s attraction driven,
That tends to earth, which had upris’n to heaven;
Threatening in the mad thunder-cloud, as when
Fierce legions clash, and vanish from the plain;
Sad destiny of the troubled world! but see,
The mist is now dispersing gloriously:
And language fails us in its vain endeavour —
The spirit mounts above, and lives forever.”

(Full text here for the illustrated third edition of 1865.  And, yes, this post is not illustrated.)

Notes:

1.  “Askesian”, meaning “philosophical exercise”, was “…a practically oriented and largely non-conformist group dedicated to natural and experimental philosophy”.  http://journal.sciencemuseum.ac.uk/

2.  According to the OED, “meteorology” goes back quite a way as a word, popping up in 1563; “meteoroloician” appears in 1580, and “meteorologist” in 1683.)

3.  “The location of many of the sketches gives us an initial hint of their Romanticism. For many years Howard travelled between London and the Lake District in order to capture the full range of what he termed ‘cloud modifications’, training himself in the notoriously difficult art of depicting clouds, of fixing them as they changed  “

Howard begins his 1803 paper so:

“If the necessary pursuit If clouds were the mere result of the condensation of var pour in the masses of atmosphere which they occupy if their variations were produced by the movements of the atmosphere alone then indeed might the study of them be deemed an useless pursuit of shadows an attempt to describe forms which being the sport of winds must be ever varying and therefore not to be defined. But however the erroneous admission of this opinion may have operated to prevent attention to them the case is not so with clouds. They are subject to certain distinct modifications produced by the general causes which effect all the variations of the atmosphere they are commonly as good visible indications of the operation of these causes as is the countenance of the state of a person’s mind or body…”

JF Ptak Science Books   Quick Post

The beneficial effects of “coffee” had been  known in Ethiopia, and Arabia, and Persia, and Syria, and Turkey, long before it was used and enjoyed in the West. where coffee didn’t make a strong appearance until the 17th century.  Evidently, though it took nearly another hundred years for the first taxonomic description to appear. That was the work of  Antoine de Jussieu (1686-1750) , and his effort appeared tucked away in a short article “Histoire du Cafe”in the scientific journal Memoires de l’Academie des Sciences in 1713. 

The Jussieu is a coffee incunable in the Western world. It was described as “The first recorded taxonomic description of coffee…described a coffee plant from the botanical garden of Amsterdam as “Jasminum arabicanum, lauri folio, cujus femen apudnos coffee decir” in 1713 (“Arab jasmine, with laurel type leaves, the beans of which we can call coffee”)–(Wintgens, 2009, quoted by Caas Brazil, Coffee Taxonomy.) And although there isn’t an exact reference to the place of publication from what I can determine this must be the source–the article also uses a quote from the paper that is directly from this paper, which I reproduce above.  The Jussieu paper was also described as  “The first botanical description of a coffee tree, under the nam Jasminum arabicanum…made in 1713 by A. de Jussieu, who studied a single plant originating from the botanic garden of Amsterdam.” found in Charrier, A.; Berthaud, J.  “Botanical Classification of Coffee”, (1985), found in Clifford, M. H.; Wilson, K. C. Coffee: Botany, Biochemistry and Production of Beans and Beverage, AVI Publishing, p. 14. A wiki article on Jussieu references this paper but in a 1739 Paris edition of the 1713.  The 11-page article is also illustrated by an engraving of the coffee tree:

Notes:

JF Ptak Science Books  Post 2641  

I’m a fan of some sorts when I see a string of abbreviations, the writer writing for a sympathetic readership with at least a common interest in the subject, knowing that spelling everything out isn’t quite necessary, especially if space is an issue.  On title pages this happens often with the academic heritage and awards of the author, as well as with quotes, which is where my staccato of abbreviations was found.

The “misunderstanding”  here occurs in the reference to the source of the quote, which has lead me to look at a number of different editions of various works by the author.  It seems that I am missing something big in finding the source of the quote, because it seems impossible that an attribution right there in the middle of the title page of one of the most significant scientific periodicals of the 19th century will surely not be incorrect.

First, the abbreviation for the origin of the quote (“Nec aranearum sane textus ideo melior quia ex se fila gignunt, nec noster
vilior quia ex alienis libamus ut apes.”) starts out beautifully with “Just. Lips.” followed by “Monit. Polit. lib. i. cap. 1.”  

This is simply the name of the author and the work and page on which the quote is found:  initially I thought I was dealing with Justus Lipsius’¹ Politicorum sive civilis doctrinae libri sex : qui ad principatum maxime spectant. Additae notae auctiores, tum et De una religione liber…, printed at the Plantin Press in Leiden in 1589, book one (of the six books/sections comprising the work, or “libri sex”), chapter one.

I don’t know the quote, and even though I have been working with the Philosophical Magazine for quite some time, I never had bothered to to it up until a few days ago, when I bumped into this question.  The thing is, the quote doesn’t really appear in I/1–it does appear in the Additae Notae section at the end of the book, on page 463, referencing I/1 on page 12.

Then I figured out that this seemed to not be the correct book, although the quote was more-or-less placed correctly.  The “Monit” part of the extended abbreviations refers to Lipsius Monita et exempla politica : libri dvo, qui virtvtes et vitia principum spectant…²(1609), in which I did a text search for keywords and the quote but could not find it, which further confuses a matter that may not be confusing to someone more familiar with these works and era. 

It seems impossible that the Phil Mag would be in error here on the issue of referencing a great classic and that it must be that I’m just missing something,  and no doubt someone reading this will let me know.

In any event I thought I’d share this little ride I took on the back of this quote…which, by the way, along with the sentence preceding it, is quoted and translated  in  The Reception of Erasmus in the Early Modern Period, edited by Karl A. E. Enenkel (page 188. below):

Image source and full text at Internet Archive: https://archive.org/details/imgPiz59MiscellaneaOpal

 

Which in a sense is similar to the Newton/shoulders-of-giants quote, here the writers building upon that which has come before and making something different of it. 

Notes:

1.  Justus Lipsius  “…humanist and classical scholar…(Joost Lips, 1547–1606), described by his admiring correspondent Michel de Montaigne as one of the most learned men of his day (EssaysII.12), was the founding father of Neostoicism, a key component of European thought in the late sixteenth and seventeenth centuries…”–Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (online))

2.  Lipsius’ work can be seen here at the Internet Archive: https://archive.org/details/ivstilipsimonita00lips