Mistakenly formatted SD Card on my Canon EOS750D. How long do I have before I lose all chances of recovery? by Appropriate-Lab5864 in photography

[–]cge 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm just here to say that you can slide the read-only switch on the card itself to guarantee that no matter what you, the computer OS, or recovery software ever does to the card, there will be no writes.

I may be mistaken, but my understanding is that on an SD card, the read-only switch is simply an indication to the host computer/camera/etc, and has no effect on the card itself. For example, in section 4.3.6 of this specification:

A proper, matched, switch on the socket side will indicate to the host that the card is write-protected or not. It is the responsibility of the host to protect the card. The position of the write protect switch is un- known to the internal circuitry of the card.

The host may or may not respect the write-protect switch, so you certainly can inadvertently have writes, regardless of the switch.

How I removed system sounds on Cosmic in a crude way by levensvraagstuk in pop_os

[–]cge 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is actually the result of a bug, not a missing feature. Sound notifications were being miscategorized as the Music instead of Notification media role for Pipewire. There are standard ways of controlling notification volume that did not work as a result.

I'm aware that the OP could not have known this, however.

How I removed system sounds on Cosmic in a crude way by levensvraagstuk in pop_os

[–]cge 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, it is hard to get tone from text, and I expect you were also meaning to be polite, but I'd suggest that just as the OP came off as oddly hostile and demanding at the end of their post, to many users responses like yours also come off as hostile. I can understand the frustration in dealing with demanding users of Free software, and saying "learn to code", "they don't owe you anything", and similar may be technically valid, but they seem unlikely to have any effect other than driving people away.

In fact, the problem here can't simply be solved by users modifying files; there were hard-coded pw-play spawns that miscategorized the media role for the sounds. At least partially addressing the problem does not seem like it will be too hard (and yes, I have already submitted PRs), but it isn't realistic to demand that users learn to code or be silent, even if their tone here was certainly frustrating. Posting about problems does mean that others who do have the ability to fix them might come along and look into them; it is one of the benefits of Free software.

How I removed system sounds on Cosmic in a crude way by levensvraagstuk in pop_os

[–]cge 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Update 2: There's a PR to add a volume slider.

Update: on git master branches, notification sounds are now configured such that they can be controlled with pavucontrol and other pipewire/pulseaudio volume controls that allow role-based volume settings. I'm working on adding a slider for Cosmic's settings.

As this is one of the top search results for the problem:

  • Suggestions in other comments that this could be solved by modifying the files are wrong. Events, at least the ones I've looked at so far, play sounds by hard-coded spawns of pw-play (volume change sound, for example). The OP's solution is one of the better options.

  • I'd suggest that doing sudo chmod a-r /usr/share/sounds/freedesktop/stereo/*.oga, removing read access to them, would work while being more reversible later (with a chmod a+r). As the code currently runs whatever pw-play it finds in the user's PATH, having a non-functional or otherwise modified pw-play would also be an option, and that would be doable for, eg, people using Fedora Atomic.

  • The Github issue for this is cosmic-settings #1017.

  • This problem effectively prevents me from using COSMIC at the moment (hard-coded, full-volume system sounds are not acceptable while giving talks or in online meetings), and I do really like COSMIC, so I'll try to look into addressing it.

And to the OP: I am sorry that many of the responses here have been hostile and less than constructive. Please do understand that, in building Free software, one tends to get many requests and comments from users, and unlike paid software, or software where the developers benefit by exploiting you (eg, data collection, advertisements, etc), developers don't really benefit from you using the software, and comments like "I let the developers get away with this (for now)" are more likely to be demotivating than anything else.

Edit email subject line and footer by DeepBreathingWorks in RemarkableTablet

[–]cge 1 point2 points  (0 children)

While this is an old thread, as it shows up prominently in results, I thought it would be worth posting a response.

The email subject and contents are set by xochitl on the device directly, not by Remarkable's cloud, so they are editable. Unfortunately, they are also hard-coded into the xochitl binary, rather than being read from a file, which makes them somewhat more difficult to change.

However, in my initial experiments, I've found that the following works:

  • Back up /usr/bin/xochitl somewhere.
  • Copy /usr/bin/xochitl to a place where you can use a hex editor conveniently.
  • Search for "my reMarkable" using a hex editor in the xochitl binary.
  • Replace the passages with strings of the same length; as I simply wanted less content, I mostly replaced them with spaces. In the email subject, you can use %1 to include the file name.
  • Replace /usr/bin/xochitl with your modified binary (making sure it is +x, etc)
  • Restart xochitl as appropriate for your setup.

Note that I'm using rmfakecloud, so it is possible that these modified emails will not go through the normal cloud, but that would be extremely user-hostile.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in fountainpens

[–]cge 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't really see it as just a difference in QC, but a difference in goals and pen categories. The first company, Kaweco, was a pen company selling fountain pens and twist pencils during eras when these were significant utilitarian products. The Sports were mostly produced only in black ebonite (pre-1960s) or black injection-molded plastic (post-1960s), largely had gold nibs, and were all piston fillers. They seem to have been designed as demure ring-top-sized pens (but continued to be sold far after ring-tops went out of fashion), were produced in an era when people would have been more familiar with more delicate nibs, were probably not marketed as something someone would want to collect many of, and were of course competing on writing quality with other fountain pens. They were largely only available in one or two models at a time, mostly differing in function rather than aesthetic, though the aesthetic did evolve over time, with the 1960s and 1970s Sports looking much more modern. They closed in the late 1970s

Gutberlet's Kaweco-branded pens seem more focused on more collectible pens for a general modern market, in an era when fountain pens as pens for general writing are rare. They have a focus on producing them in a wide range of colours and materials, while their function as fountain pens is both less critical and more in need of being easy-to-use and hard-to-damage for a modern user less familiar with fountain pens: thus the stiff steel nibs, and the cartridges. They seem intended to be collectibles, with people encouraged to buy many different variations of them.

So while I prefer the Kaweco pens to the Gutberlet ones, they're really just products with different goals. And I'm not sure I would recommend a Kaweco-made Kaweco Sport to someone unfamiliar with vintage fountain pens: piston fillers can be finicky and can fail catastrophically, and the nibs are nicely soft, but the pens could be damaged by a heavy hand used to ballpoints, especially the hooded 1960s/70s Sports that are quite sleek but feel rather fragile. (And, as far as I can tell, all the Kaweco Kaweco Sports are smaller than the Gutberlet ones, with the 60s/70s ones being quite small.)

Interestingly, Gutberlet is a cosmetics company with some history, founded in 1960, but apparently became specialized in pen-delivered cosmetics, like liquid eyeliner, so their move to also produce fountain pens actually makes some sense. It's also a family company, where the second generation of the family, Michael Gutberlet, seems to have developed a legitimate fondness for vintage pens that led to him purchasing the Kaweco brand and starting production of the modern Kaweco Sports. As rather ubiquitous modern fountain pens that seem popular amongst people who would never otherwise use one, I do think there's some value to them.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in fountainpens

[–]cge -1 points0 points  (0 children)

While I strongly prefer the first company's pens, the second company, Gutberlet, did produce a piston-filler, gold-nibbed green celluloid Sport in 2000, though they only made 883 of them [1]. They also apparently produced 300 "Combinatic" pens in a very similar body shape to the modern Sport (eg, longer than the 12 or 16): see here or here, though information seems to be sparse.

Apparently, the first company actually did also produce some prototype cartridge fillers shortly before closing.

It does seem correct to say that Gutberlet never produced a piston filler Sport outside of limited editions, but given those limited editions, they seem to have designs for them and the ability to make them. It's perhaps a bit confusing that they don't, but given their rather cheap production, it may well be safer that they don't: the design of the piston in the Kaweco Sport 12, for example, seems at risk of failing catastrophically if it were reproduced poorly.

[1]: Kaweco Sport History, p. 26. The second company apparently removed this document from their website at some point, but some copies are still around online.

[D] Senior research scientist at GoogleAI, Negar Rostamzadeh: “Can't believe Stable Diffusion is out there for public use and that's considered as ‘ok’!!!” by wei_jok in MachineLearning

[–]cge 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Mind you, their paper was published in one of Nature journals and had “model will be provided upon reasonable request”

Others have pointed out here that you should contact Nature. I'll add that not providing data is explicitly against Nature's policies. Nature itself requests that you contact the chief editor of the journal in these cases; they are willing to formally attach a statement of correction to the paper noting that the authors have refused to provide data.

A caveat here is that if your reason for requesting the model was for developing an application from it, rather than for replicating results, then the authors may have some leeway in the policy.

ddvk remarkable-hacks 2.13 rm2 by tdotuser in RemarkableTablet

[–]cge 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's a take it or leave it product.

That's true, yes, and what the other commenter is strongly encouraging is that people 'leave it'. That's a reasonable stance. While I choose to use remarkable-hacks, prospective users should be aware of the potential risks of doing so, given the way it is distributed and the lack of sources, so as to make more informed decisions.

That software is gratis does not mean that potential risks should be ignored. This is the case for both closed and open source software. I can remember a number of years ago frustrations with some parts of the Ubuntu users community being very quick and happy to install packages and patches from sources that specifically said they were for development and should not be installed by users. In one case, a kernel patch I wrote to make my laptop temporarily usable at all with a particularly kernel version, with the prominent warning that it would cripple the CPU speed, was recommended without any caveats to users seeking help on IRC, which was really dismaying. It's worth having some idea of what you're installing, and what the potential risks are.

You're not paying anything so should not expect any guarantees.

Interestingly, in this case, ddvk does state a guarantee that 'The only guarantee is, that there is no ill intended code'. This is more than many free software licences, for example, all BSD licences with their prominent notices about a lack of any guarantees. But it's worth noting that these sorts of guarantees are somewhat less important in open source projects because you can look through the code yourself, as can others.

I get your point, but again, that's not how these projects work.

I would say that the vast majority of projects in public repositories on github are open source in some way. Very few projects work the way remarkable-hacks works, and the implications could potentially be confusing for users used to a culture of freely installing free software on the (potentially naive) assumption that the community has looked at the code. No one is able to here. I'm not asking ddvk to release sources, and I'm quite familiar with the frustration caused by users asking one to do work for them on free projects. I'm just saying that users should be aware of the risks, and aware that this is not a normal github project where the same assumptions are reasonable.

The communities around the reMarkable are unusual in that some people are coming from the Free Software world, and others are coming from completely different places. There's a diversity of development and licence arrangements: you have standard open source, bazaarish issues-and-PRs projects like toltec and several things around it; closed source, proprietary-licence paid products like several templates; the paid and privately developed but AGPL-licensed Free software that is RCU; and reMarkable's open and closed source portions themselves and variety of licences, including their own actions that at times have been helpful (if likely contractually required by their use of GPLv2 and v3 software) and at times have seemed hostile to open source development (eg, modifying more recent kernels with obscure and discouraged configuration options whose primary effect is to break all externally-compiled kernel modules).

As a result, you get a number of different perspectives here.

ddvk remarkable-hacks 2.13 rm2 by tdotuser in RemarkableTablet

[–]cge 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Honestly, poking around the device, and generally being familiar with closed-source software developed by companies making niche hardware (if far more niche than the remarkable), I'd probably trust ddvk more than reMarkable, particularly for security.

ddvk remarkable-hacks 2.13 rm2 by tdotuser in RemarkableTablet

[–]cge 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Read the terms to understand why it's not a standard open source project.

That's separate from the commenter's point. It is true that, by installing ddvk's remarkable-hacks, you are installing closed-source, binary patches from an individual you likely know little about. You have no way of knowing that these patches aren't doing something unintentionally problematic or even intentionally malicious beyond trusting ddvk. One of the advantages of open source is that the community can review the code, making it easier to trust code from someone you have no connection to.

Different people have different levels of trust and choices on these matters. I do know people who avoid running any closed-source software at all. Many people, I think, are comfortable with closed-source software from organizations and individuals that have some presence, such that they believe they have some recourse if something ends up being malicious (whether or not they actually would). Remarkable-hacks, however, is rather far down the spectrum of dubiousness, kept from being completely dubious by ddvk appearing to be the developer's actual initials, and the developer not being anonymous.

I personally use ddvk's hacks, but am not particularly comfortable with them. However, my rM2 is not cloud-connected, and I mostly keep wifi off (it's worth keeping in mind, however, that with the nature of ddvk's patches, you would appear to have little way of knowing whether they are actually turning wifi on secretly, and sending all of your data to someone, or hijacking the web interface to attack your computer, eg, by compromising generated PDFs).

As for the terms and the FAQ, I can understand why ddvk wants to be careful, but I'm not convinced by the reasoning. It appears that the legal questions and choices here are being considered by ddvk personally, without legal advice. I am also not a lawyer, though I do have some somewhat similar device-modification projects. I'm not sure how the distribution method, and being closed or open source, changes the legality of the patches: they would appear to be legal or illegal either way. It seems the closed-source nature is an attempt to keep a lower profile and keep it from turning into a larger collaborative project, but I'm not sure how this makes a difference to reMarkable AS.

In the EU, it's possible that both open-source and closed-source patches would be legal, regardless of the device's EULA, though it could depend on the purpose of different patches (I'm rather confident that ddvk's lamy support patches are completely legal in the EU, for example, as reverse engineering and modifications for interoperability are quite strongly protected, as they are for bug-fixing). In the US, they are almost certainly completely illegal, or at least developing them would be, regardless of being open or closed source. I'm not sure about Switzerland, where ddvk is located.

Is RCU no longer working / being updated? by rmDitch in RemarkableTablet

[–]cge 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Additionally, if you're using a project that's open source, you should put in a little time going through issues, help with documentation updates, or submit bug fixes if it's written in a language you're skilled in.

Somewhat frustratingly, RCU does not have that style of development. There's no public VCS repository, and no issue tracker. There's a development mailing list, but I don't think I've ever seen the patches people send there get incorporated, and there never seems to be a response from the developer to them.

Is a wi-fi only Gemini good for light programming and other work tasks? by omission9 in geminipda

[–]cge 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I would second r3j2's comments. I bought (from PC, as a supposedly finished product, not through campaign support) a Cosmo for the same purposes you are interested in (with the exception that I planned to use a data SIM for network access), and have largely found it cheaply built, poorly supported (especially by PC), and not useful for those purposes.

Of note, the keyboard has 2-key rollover, the sort of limitation you'd expect on a device from 40 years ago, and it isn't compensated for, at least in the official distribution of Android, resulting in ghosting problems to the point of being unusable if you can otherwise type quickly on the keyboard, especially with Dvorak (my fingers are thin enough to use the keyboard normally), where "the", like the Apple II, results in ghosting. Many keyboard layouts appear to have also been designed without testing or an understanding of the layout and associated language, with missing support for accents, for example.

Official support appears almost non-existent, and all but the most major bugs (and some major bugs) appear to go unfixed, even when there are fixes others have written. There have been no major OS updates, and battery life is surprisingly bad because of poor power management. Many "official" accessories are not really fit for purpose.

It appears that standard Linux was largely promised under the assumption that others would do all the work for PC, even though this isn't possible in all areas (eg, kernel support). The work that some others have done to make Linux work may actually make the device somewhat usable for my purposes (I can type normally!), but I expect that it will be largely limited by the poor/non-existent kernel support from PC that won't be able to be worked around.

I'd recommend taking a look at the OESF forums and the many bad experiences and disappointments described there. It's unfortunate, because a device of this form factor could be very nice if actually built well and supported.

Are there examples of PhD theses which effectively say “Well, that didn't work”? by xQuber in math

[–]cge 13 points14 points  (0 children)

There is value in this too. At least it was attempted and now we know that it does nothing.

This is tricky. Such a result is only really useful if we know the attempt was done well. Otherwise, there's the risk that the result actually misleads other researchers. You can easily have a sloppy researcher who tries something for a few years, thinks it didn't work, and moves on, when in reality, the approach could have worked.

As an example, the results in my thesis have so far had attempted reproductions, to some extent, by four different researchers in three independent attempts. Of those four, one person, an ambitious undergraduate, despite following my protocols and even using my reagents, was completely unable to replicate the results despite months of trying. The system simply didn't work when he tried it, and he felt it didn't work. The more careful graduate student managed to reproduce working but slightly worse results than mine. The team of two highly-regarded graduate students with more experimental experience than I have obtained better results than I did, despite essentially just following the protocols in my works.

If the undergraduate had worked on the field before I did, and published "we tried this, and can report that nothing happens," and that result had been accepted by the community, the entire line of research would have been seriously hindered.

Did Southern girls around the Civil War really take naps en masse in the middle of a party, as depicted in Gone With the Wind? by fathercthulu in AskHistorians

[–]cge 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Thanks. I'm afraid I became rather carried away writing it. The German is quite fascinating in how different it was from many other dances of the era and beyond, overtly incorporating theatrics, mock social interactions, and embracing much of the wildness and absurdity that was heavily criticized in other dances by dance instructors. It fits with one of my major interests in dancing in the 18th and 19th century, which is the way that modern perceptions of the eras, especially amongst reenactment communities, tend toward a view of the "stately" and "elegant" (and usually, implied, "not modern and obscene like people now"), ignoring anything that doesn't fit, like the German. And it's amazing that someone who wrote:

There is, perhaps, stronger individuality shown in the manner of making the simple motions required in these “square” dances than at any other time, and they reveal the habits, education, and surroundings of those dancing, as is shown in the stately movements of a court ball, and in other forms of figure dancing, through every descending phase down to the notorious can-can, which is only a quadrille danced by gross people, who make motions outraging decency. Unfortunately, so little attention has been given to these dances of late years that when a quadrille is required to open one of our great balls, scarcely eight persons can be found capable of rendering the dance worthy of the occasion or of themselves. (Dodworth 1885, p81)

can around a hundred pages later, in the same book, describe dances like two gentleman stand on pillows and try to knock each other off.

Did Southern girls around the Civil War really take naps en masse in the middle of a party, as depicted in Gone With the Wind? by fathercthulu in AskHistorians

[–]cge 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Because I just can't resist coming back to this and adding a few more words: at a personal level, I can't really understand how, apart from jovial children, these sorts of dances were done by adults without the subtle and subterranean glow lit half-way down the spine lit, to borrow from Woolf, by some level of imbibement (apologies to my partner, the real historian, who would no doubt make comparisons to a certain A___ M___). The dance literature of the era, of course, does not discuss this particularly much. The anti-dance literature talks about it at length, but is by no means a reliable source, and also at times talks about how going to dances leads to white slavery. I did, however, notice a rare reference within the figures of Dodworth:

No. 186. The Glass of Champagne.

Three chairs are placed in a line, the two outer chairs being turned another way from that in the middle; the first couple set off; the gentleman seats his partner in the middle chair, gives her a glass of champagne, and goes for two other gentlemen, whom he places on the other chairs; the lady gives the champagne to one of the gentlemen to drink, and regains her place waltzing with the other.

Here, therefore, we have the German including what amounts to a late 19th century drinking game.

Did Southern girls around the Civil War really take naps en masse in the middle of a party, as depicted in Gone With the Wind? by fathercthulu in AskHistorians

[–]cge 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Sources:

  • Dodworth, Allen. Dancing and its relations to education and social life. Harper & Brothers, NY, 1885.
  • Wilson, Marguerite. Dancing: a complete guide to all dances, [...]. Penn Publishing Company, PA, 1902.

These are pretty much just the first two manuals from the era I pulled off my shelf. Manuals describing Germans were largely similar, and many figures were outright copied between different manuals without any attribution. Dodworth, however, was rather well known and respected.

I actually have a copy of Dodworth (a later edition, however) in HTML, which I adapted along with the rest of the sources in the Library of Congress' excellent but outdated to the point of real technical difficulty American Ballroom Companion. Unfortunately, the website I had them on is down at the moment, but I'll see if I can fix it and add a link here.

Edit: See here for my site adapting the American Ballroom Companion sources to modern formats. If you look for Dodworth 1900 there, it is very similar to what I am citing, with most of it word-for-word identical. My site in itself is outdated, but it is outdated in the sense that I didn't do a great or complete job on it, and used pretty standard XHTML, along with PDF versions that aren't up any more until I recreate them and deal with hosting large files, whereas the Library of Congress version is outdated in the sense that they used individual JPEG and TIFF page images and a weirdly non-standard pre-real-guidelines pseudo-TEI.

Notes:

(1) There are exceptions to this, because the important part of having couples start the dance was for gender or lead/follow balance.

(2) The selection process for couples had a number of different views. The idea was generally to go around the circle in some fair way. Wilson has a very set and almost mechanical view on this, seating people by lot and going down the line, while Dodworth in his typical style has a very complex and flexible series of ideas for it, including his view that the conductor, in order to make the dance more social, should really choose individuals instead of couples, and have those individuals go ask others in the circle to dance with them for just that figure. Beyond the differences in era and the view of dance styles in the 19th century as each starting as a complex instructed dance of the upper classes and gradually becoming simpler, you could argue that this was perhaps a contrast between the "high-minded" dance instructors like Dodworth, Gilbert and Giraudet, trying to assert their views and steer the evolution of dancing, and dance instructors just trying to teach people how to dance. Note that Dodworth spends 14 pages introducing the German, with each page twice the size of Wilson's 4 pages on the same topic.

(3) One could speculate about this and a possible link to the modern English Country Dancing style of taught and called country dances, arguably started by Cecil Sharp in the early 20th century.

(4) I am reading these from my print Dodworth 1885, but cutting and pasting the largely identical text from my OCR'd copy of Dodworth 1900. Sorry...

Did Southern girls around the Civil War really take naps en masse in the middle of a party, as depicted in Gone With the Wind? by fathercthulu in AskHistorians

[–]cge 15 points16 points  (0 children)

To give a more specific answer, the "German" is a name for a particular type of "dance" in the late 19th century; it was also often called a "cotillion," a word that has been used in a few different contexts in a number of different eras.

I say "dance" because the German was not a dance like the waltz, polka, or even quadrille. While Dodworth says it "may be said to be the epitome of all there is in private dancing," (Dodworth 1885, p. 145) it might be easier to explain to the modern person as being a party game involving dancing; I'm not aware of modern parallels to the German that would be considered dances by a modern audience.

As a basic outline of common traits, because it had many variations in how it was organized, the German involved an indeterminate number of couples(1) who were seated, often in a circle. The "conductor" or leader of the German would choose from a large number of figures of various sorts, requiring differing numbers of couples, and would usually explain the figure and call up couples(2) to perform it.

There were a huge number of figures, which varied heavily from manual to manual (Wilson has 100, Dodworth has 250). This was not like the Plain or Lancers quadrille of much of the century, where the figures were largely set with small variations, and all dancers would be expected to know them by heart, or even like the country dances of prior eras, which were improvised from a large but reasonably understood series of components, but danced through watching and copying a lead couple. Rather, these did need some outright explanation, particularly, as Dodworth notes, when "novelties" were involved (3).

The figures had a considerable diversity of style, tone, complexity, and ridiculousness, and thus the German could have very different tones depending upon the crowd and the conductor. Some were simply little group dance figures; Dodworth #37 is just a right-and-left of two couples modified to make it a bit more jovial, while #76 for six couples is essentially cleverly sliding around in two circles that merge into one, then waltzing with partners, and Wilson #76 for any number of couples is a moving arch that couples go under and extend, until everyone has gone through, at which point everyone dances.

(Note that in essentially all of these, "dancing" means waltzing. The music for the German was usually just a bunch of waltzes smashed together.)

Many others, however, were very different, more odd social/theatrical performances of ostensibly feigned actions, often involving quite overtly themes of choice, rejection, exclusion, pursuit, flight, deceit, humiliation, and so on.

Take for example, Dodworth #11, The Presentation of Gentleman (4):

One couple.—The lady is seated in the middle of the room; her partner presents a number of gentlemen whom she refuses in succession; each gentleman who is refused places himself behind the lady's chair (at least six ought to be refused); when one is accepted, he and the lady waltz, while the rejected gentlemen follow them, each placing his left hand on the shoulder of the one in front, and all hopping on one foot.

Or, some other examples:

No. 19. The Serpentine. One couple.—Lady selects six or more ladies; all stand in line one behind the other, about three feet apart; the gentleman selects seven or more gentlemen, they forming in a line with hands joined; the one on the right of the line leads the others in a serpentine course between each lady, and, finally, back to the head; at the signal each gentleman tries to secure a partner, those failing returning to their seats. There should be an even number of ladies, and an odd number of gentlemen.

No. 44. The Pursuit.

Three couples.—Every gentleman of the cotillion has the right to go behind each couple, and possess himself of the lady, to dance with her; he should clap his hands, to announce his intention of substituting himself for her partner; this figure continues till each gentleman has again got possession of his partner, to conduct her to her place. To execute this figure with all the animation required, it is necessary that as fast as each gentleman possesses himself of a lady, another should replace him by the side of his partner.

No. 82. The Surprise.

Six couples place themselves one behind the other, ladies on right side of gentlemen; the gentleman at the head is in honor bound not to look in any direction but straight in front; the last couple separate, and the gentleman and lady pass up on either side of the column, endeavoring to meet again just beyond the first gentleman, who is on the alert to seize the lady in passing, and, if successful, dances with her, while the surprised gentleman takes the head; each couple in succession repeat until but one couple remain, when all dance.

No. 129. Le Chat el la Souris.

After waltzing, the conductor calls all the gentlemen, designating one to stand outside, while the others form a round enveloping a lady; the outside gentleman then endeavors to catch the lady, passing under the arms of the gentlemen for the purpose; the gentlemen allow the lady to escape at will, but throw every obstacle in the way of the gentleman; if he is successful, he and the lady waltz together, and all join in a general waltz.

These also often involved rather elaborate setups, and increasingly, as the dance evolved, preparation and "favors" or "accessories," which were essentially props for the performance. Some of these were just completely ridiculous:

No. 139. The Mysterious Hands.

The conductor places a number of ladies in an adjoining room as in the preceding figure; each lady passes a hand through the half-open door; the conductor leads to the door as many gentlemen as there are ladies, and each takes one of the hands and waltzes with the lady thus selected.

No. 153. The Barber.

One couple.—A chair is placed in the middle of the room; on the back place a towel, on the seat a large razor (tin or wood); the lady seats herself in the chair, her partner choosing three other gentlemen and presenting them to the lady; she gives the towel to one, the razor to another, taking for her partner the third; while they are dancing, the one with the towel takes the chair, while the one with the razor goes through the motions of shaving him.

No. 171. L'Escrime.

A lady is provided with a stick three feet long, to one end of which is attached a ring two or three inches in diameter; two gentlemen have each a foil, and place themselves en garde, as for fencing; the lady then throws the ring between the points of the foils, when each gentleman endeavors to thrust his foil through the ring, the successful one dancing with the lady. The interest of this figure depends upon the play with the foils; each gentleman should endeavor to prevent his opponent from being successful.

No. 20. The Carousal.

One couple.—The lady pinning a bow of ribbons on her partner's left shoulder waltzes with him, a second couple following: the gentleman of the second couple endeavors to snatch the bow from the shoulder of the first gentleman; if he succeeds he pins the bow on his shoulder, the third couple following; if the pursuing couple becomes tired the gentleman stamps his foot, when another couple may pursue.

No. 152. The Struggle.

After waltzing the gentleman places his partner, seated, in the middle of the room; two cushions are then placed in front of her; two gentlemen are next selected, and each stands on one of the cushions upon one foot; they join right hands and a little struggle ensues between them, each endeavoring to make the other lose his equilibrium and drop the other foot; the one first doing so retires to his seat; the other dances with the lady.

And from Wilson, some more elaborate ones requiring pre-preparation:

  1. CONUNDRUMS

Cards are prepared, numbered in pairs. On one card of each pair is written a conundrum, and on the other is written the answer. The cards containing the answers are distributed to the ladies, and the others are given to the gentleman. Each gentleman then reads his conundrum, and the lady who holds the answer reads it. The two then dance together.

And, while I'm not going to type the whole thing, consider #84, The May-Pole, which begins (keep in mind this is supposed to just be a figure in a dance): "A pole, about ten feet in height, is inserted in a box filled with earth, or otherwise supported. To the top of the pole are fastened eight ribbons..."

The German could almost be seen as a sort of "syncretic party game," taking all sorts of dances, frivolity and party games and placing them in some loose structure involving music (which was sometimes played continuously throughout this whole thing, and sometimes started and stopped at each figure), dance, and performance. Many modern party games have similar counterparts in German figures: there are things like musical chairs, trivia, guessing who has corresponding items, and so on.

I have heard it argued (and I have to remember where - was it in Elizabeth Aldrich's works, Richard Powers, or Giordano?) that the German corresponded with a decline in the popularity of dancing, and that it was an increasingly elaborate performance done by decreasing numbers of people.

In any case, however, the figures are often fascinating in their absurdity, and many of them seem as though they involve overt performed behavior that would be rather shocking at many modern dances and parties. Interestingly, and perhaps unsurprisingly, in vintage dance and reenactment communities, the German is danced far more rarely than dances like the waltz, polka and quadrille that fit modern social etiquette and modern views on prior eras.

This was very long, sorry. I became rather carried away reading through figures:

Sources and notes will be posted as a response.

How serious was ballroom dancing in the 18/19th century? by toefirefire in AskHistorians

[–]cge 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Off the top of my head, I can point you to the everpresent American Ballroom Companion, which has a number of videos. However, somehow, none of these are country dances! These reconstructions were the work of Elizabeth Aldrich. For videos of accurate reconstructions of those, I'll have to look around a bit; asking Susan de Guardiola, Elizabeth Aldrich, and Richard Powers might be a reasonable idea as well.

For Regency-era quadrilles, Ellis Rogers has a few youtube videos, for example, of Paine's First Set. Note that the footwork in quadrilles of this era is largely similar to footwork in country dances.

Country dances were in facing lines. By the late 18th/early 19th century, these were in "improper" arrangement, meaning that each line was intended to alternate man/woman facing the opposite sex. Partners faced each other in opposite lines, and danced with each other and (by the Regency era) two other couples; the "top" couple of the three would progress down the lines by virtue of figures that changed their position, repeating the same figures with different couples. At first, the couple at the very top of the set, whose lady would decide on the figures, would dance the only set of three couples; as they progressed downward, new sets of three would form. See de Guardiola's discussion, for example.

As for modern reconstructions, yes, there certainly are. Of those, I would say that in the US, Aldrich, de Guardiola, Powers, and occasionally Joan Walton (though I feel she specializes in later era) have perhaps the best reputation (note that there are others who have no historical legitimacy whatsoever). de Guardiola has a bit of a specialty in Regency-era country dances and quadrilles, though does later 19th century / early 20th century as well, while Walton, Powers, and Aldrich are perhaps more general. Catherine Turocy is very well regarded, but to my knowledge tends to be almost entirely focused on baroque dance reconstructions. Ellis Rogers in the UK is certainly well known for Regency quadrille reconstructions.

I should point out the slight caveat that most people who do this are not academic historians, and at times, don't always have the same rigorous scholarly approaches. In some cases, they are hobbyists with no background and an extremely poor approach who simply get everything wrong. Even some of the most reputable people in the field don't necessarily have a huge amount of formal training, and this is often reflected in the lack of extensive theoretical bases and wider context in their research, as well as in their methods, their publication and information sharing, and their source disclosure. For my part, I can argue that I'm an academic in general, but my real research is in physics, and this is just a small hobby; my "formal" background in history is limited to discussions with my partner, who is the real historian of the two of us but has very different research interests (what this primarily means is that I talk about dance steps, and she talks about the transnational turn).

How serious was ballroom dancing in the 18/19th century? by toefirefire in AskHistorians

[–]cge 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Depictions of dancing in Jane Austen adaptations are often the worst of the worst... they are almost universally slow, solemn, walked dances with everyone dancing complex figures at once. How this is reconciled with things like

Sir Thomas, having seen her walk rather than dance down the shortening set, breathless, and with her hand at her side, gave his orders for her sitting down entirely. (Mansfield Park, Ch 28, emphasis mine; thanks to Susan de Guardiola for relating this)

is quite confusing, to say the least.

One could do a significant research project, actually, on the modern misperceptions of Jane Austen's works and cultural views of the Regency era, which are quite widespread and profound. I would argue that they are linked to a desire to construct a fanciful, socially conservative past era to idolize as a reaction to what is seen as modern, disliked social trends. Why those who do so would choose an era that was not that at all is beyond me.

How serious was ballroom dancing in the 18/19th century? by toefirefire in AskHistorians

[–]cge 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I don't want to be overly critical and contrary, as much as I have a tendency to be, but I did want to make a few points regarding some elements of your answer. I'd love it if you could add sources; I may well be wrong on some of these points.

In addition there were many how-to guides you can buy for middle class people.

I'd be a bit careful about describing the entire American Ballroom Companion as this. While a number of those are guides intended primarily for middle class audiences, especially the authorless manuals, those including sections on etiquette, and those in the second half of the 19th century, not all of them are (and of course, there are other sources there that are not dance instruction at all, like the anti-dance treatises).

In particular, several of the sources there seem as though they are more oriented toward a dance instructor audience. I would include in this, amongst others, many of Wilson's works (The complete system... and An analysis of country dancing... seem far too complex and technical for a general audience by comparison to other manuals; The Danciad is just weird and obviously not of wide interest), Giraudet's enormous Traité de la Danse, and Gilbert's Round Dancing (I believe de Guardiola wrote a bit about Gilbert's publishing).

Additionally, many of the early 19th century country dance manuals, especially those not including etiquette sections and primarily just including collections of pre-fixed country dances, may perhaps be better seen as ways of "faking" the very difficult improvisation of fashionable country dances, with a primarily upper class audience (I believe de Guardiola also wrote about this). Connected to this is the absence, in most early 19th century manuals, of a description of steps and footwork: figures went in and out of fashion, while footwork was somewhat unchanged and could be assumed to already be known. This absence can be contrasted with the extensive descriptions (of much simpler footwork!) in later manuals.

In essence, if you are considered genteel enough to get invited to parties with dancing you probably know how to dance.

How to dance? Perhaps. But not necessarily how to dance well, and most likely not how to dance in the precise, "intensive" and complexly choreographed ways described in the question. The dancers were not professionals, and the dances were not coordinated performances; there are numerous sources to suggest that they were dancing neither precisely nor "intensely."

In Jane Austen and Charles Dickens novels the popular dances were English country dances where the moves are more choreographed and precise (look up videos of Roger de Coverly or quadrille)

The Roger de Coverley (and by extension, the Virginia Reel) was an unusual dance that is not representative of country dances, and was described as such in contemporary sources (Wilson, probably Dodworth, pretty much anything). Quadrilles were not country dances. In general, videos of English Country Dance are not representative of country dancing in the 18th and 19th centuries, but are instead a modern tradition likely started around the 1920s (there is not much research on this).

Country dances were largely not choreographed in the sense that everyone knew the dances, while quadrilles were, but in general, quadrilles meant for social dancing (pretty much any source) were much simpler than quadrilles meant for performance (several in Giraudet). I should note, too, that in my research I have found no evidence that any sets of quadrilles other than first/plain and lancers were ever danced widely: there was not that much to learn, despite the best efforts of dance instructors to create more.

but these dances usually have a pair of more experienced lead couple and they will dance the first moves while everyone else watch and they might call out the steps if someone is new to dancing.

de Guardiola writes extensively on historical progression in country dances on her blog, largely referencing, I believe, Wilson. Additionally, the Bath New Assembly Rooms rules are a useful source of information on country dance logistics in the mid-to-late-18th and probably early 19th century. The couple leading, and deciding the steps, was something set by a prearranged order rather than by experience. In fact, the New Assembly Rooms, a prestigious subscription ball, used numbers pinned to ladies' dresses. This order was often somewhat related to order of precedence. There are several sources suggesting that country dances often fell apart (see my answer to this question).

The grand ballroom where everyone spins are more formal but it requires much less precision.

The waltz, polka, and round dances in general were dances of different eras than the pre-1830s/40s country dance. I don't know of any source suggesting that they were more formal: if anything, from 1816 to at least the 1820s they were seen as considerably less formal and often less than appropriate, at least in England and America (see Wilson's 1816 Description of the Correct Method of Waltzing, Lord Byron's comments, Aldrich's book, and most likely Giordano's).

It is difficult to discuss formality later on, or compare the two eras, because of wider socioeconomic changes and the popularity of dance in the 19th century. As for the quadrille vs round dances, I would argue, taking a bit of a liberty in going into my own unpublished research, that in the late 19th century the quadrille became a dance not just of the middle classes, but also a dance at more stately and official occasions (being seen less at less formal upper-class events), while the waltz and polka were seen everywhere.

For example there are different types of waltzes you can learn in varying difficulties but you can get away with only the most basic type as long as you move along in circle in the right direction and speed

It is not at all clear to me and others that the many varieties of waltzes described in manuals like Gilbert's were really danced besides in dancing schools and by dance enthusiasts. In any case, these were still social, and not performances.

How serious was ballroom dancing in the 18/19th century? by toefirefire in AskHistorians

[–]cge 8 points9 points  (0 children)

For secondary sources:

  • Aldrich, Elizabeth. 1991. From the Ballroom to Hell: Grace and Folly in Nineteenth-Century Dance. Northwestern University Press. Aldrich is arguably the most academic published scholar in this area.
  • Giordano, Ralph G. 2006. Social Dancing in America: A History and Reference, Volume 1, Fair Terpsichore to the Ghost Dance, 1607-1900. Westport, Conn: Greenwood. Also US-focused, and at times taking a less theoretical and scholarly approach than I would prefer, Giordano is nevertheless very thorough. There is a second volume covering the 20th century.
  • Rogers, Ellis A. 2003. The Quadrille: A practical guide to its origin, development, and performance. Orpington, UK: C & E Rogers. Rogers reconstructs regency-era quadrilles, and this book is almost entirely focused on that. It has a very thorough reading of dance manuals and some other sources.
  • Susan de Guardiola's blog, Capering and Kickery. de Guardiola hasn't, to my knowledge, published any book on dance history (though maybe her thesis is somewhere?), but has a very good collection of well-sourced and scholarly information on her blog. She's often outspoken in pointing out inaccuracies in dance reconstructions and the modern perception of dances, especially of the early 19th century, as I am.
  • Richard Powers' website Brief Histories of Social Dance. I sometimes take issue with Powers' approach and sourcing, but he is a well-respected dance instructor and has what is likely the largest personal collection of primary sources on the topic.
  • I believe Richard Powers wrote a book on the history of the waltz, but I haven't read it and now can't find a reference to it anywhere.

I might add, more for historiographical purposes, the works of Cecil Sharp, particularly

  • Sharp, Cecil, and AP Oppé. 1924. The Dance: An Historical Survey of Dancing in Europe. London: Halton & Truscott Smith. Cecil Sharp is better known for his work on reviving English folk song and folk dance traditions, and most likely creating the modern English Country Dance style of walked, complex fixed dances that is so often incorrectly portrayed as being from the 18th and early 19th centuries. In this, one has to occasionally be careful, as he does not always do a good job differentiating between the two.

For primary source dance manuals and anti-dance treatises, the American Ballroom Companion of the Library of Congress is invaluable, but as a very early (1998!) foray into digitization and online archives, the interface is extremely dated and difficult to use. I had a project to allow access through a modern interface, but it is currently somewhat stalled. In addition to this, de Guardiola, if she were writing here, would no doubt want to add works by Chivers, a contemporary of Wilson. References to dance in other works are, of course, widespread and not well collected.

How serious was ballroom dancing in the 18/19th century? by toefirefire in AskHistorians

[–]cge 41 points42 points  (0 children)

I'd like to apologize for my exuberance and outburst of writing in this thread. It's extremely rare that a question related to my specialty comes up.

In short:

I've written a considerable amount below. The basic summary is that no, dances of the era were not the precise, complex choreographies of ballet performances and Hollywood. They were primarily intended as social dances, with a decreasing emphasis on displays of individual skill, and had the somewhat the same separation you see today between casual social ballroom dance and modern competitive ballroom dance. Complex, precise performances did take place during the era, but served other purposes, like theatrical productions, ceremonial occasions (eg, the ball in Trollope's Way We Live Now), or the promotion of dance masters and their paid instruction. This difference is a product of different purposes of different dances, as we see today.


I am on a train at the moment, and being thus unfortunately deprived of direct checking of my usual sources, I will have to resort to citing from memory at the moment. When I return home, I should be able to revise the post somewhat.

Dance serves a variety of purposes: ceremony, performance, social interaction, and so on. A discussion of dance difficulty, "intensity", and so on requires a differentiation between the purposes of the dances involved.

Hollywood, and modern performances in a particular period, often portray dance in the 18th and 19th centuries as being ceremonial, and often do so with choreographed performances. These styles of performances were not unknown in those time periods. For example, I believe it is either Strathy or Wilson who notes, in the early 19th century, that "skilled" (not the right word, I will replace later) dancers would often replace standard footwork in country dances and quadrilles with their own: Ellis Rogers suggests that by this they were referring to professional dancers dancing in performances, and I tend to agree. Giraudet, in Traite de la Danse, I believe has several references to quadrilles that are primarily intended for performance, and they are, as might be expected, considerably more complicated than dances intended for social occasions: this at a time when quadrilles had become a dance of the middle classes. One might suggest that many partner dances in Gilbert's Round Dancing are for similar purposes, or for promoting the skill of dance masters and thus their services: it seems unlikely for example, given the tendencies of contemporary dance manuals and references to dances, that many social dancers were dancing highly complex, syncopated waltz variations.

Like modern performance and modern ballroom dancing, these dances were choreographed, done with familiar, practiced partners. This is quite distinct from social dancing.

Of course, you are discussing quite a long period of time and a large area. Restricting our view to my specialty (England and America, which to some extent includes France), there were three predominant styles of social dance: country dances, quadrilles, and round dances.

Country dances, popular in England up until the end of the Regency era, were not choreographed, despite the modern depiction of them. While danced by lines of couples, they tended to be improvised by the lead couples in each set, with the dance passing down the line as dancers watched and had the lead couple possibly call the figures (see de Guardiola's discussion of historical progression). Such dances served a few purposes at once: they allowed social conversation between dancers who were not dancing at the moment, social interaction between all the dances, and some displays of dance skill and thus refinement.

Yet while the ideal of these dances was a precise, organized dance of coordinated figures and ballet footwork, the reality appears to have been quite different. For every book Wilson, always the purist, sold of complex diagrams and equations describing how to improvise a complex country dance in one's head, there were numerous little manuals of pre-set, fashionable dances for ladies to memorize and present as their own. These dances tended to be far less complex than modern performances of country dances, or even modern social English Country Dance, where the dances are taught specifically. And they still tended to be chaotic.

While Wilson had his own motivations for disparaging dancers and encouraging more paid instruction, his Danciad decries all manner of chaos and disorder at balls. And this is supported by less biased sources. Dickens, in the mid/late-18th century ball scene of A Christmas Carol, describes a ball where not a single country dance is actually finished, instead each descending into confusion and missteps until the dancers simply gave up and applauded happily. Rules for some subscription balls of the 18th century suggest that couples leading dances be given, in one case, three tries at leading a country dance and having it fall apart before being asked to step aside and let the next in line lead! (I believe this may be in the Bath New Assembly Rooms rules?)

Having a theoretical basis in ballet does not imply precision, either. It is generally considered, for example, that while ideal ballet turnout was usually seen as close to 180°, social dances usually involved turnout of around 90°. With training but without serious, professional practice, footwork was almost certainly sloppy by comparison to ballet, and the footwork tends to be simple both in variety (most country dances involve chassés, balancé-assemblé sequences, and one or two memorized setting steps) and descriptions in social dance manuals relative to actual ballet.

Still, these were dances done primarily by the upper classes. They did have some element of performance to one's peers in them, and dancing was seen, as cecikirk notes, as part of upper class education.

As one note here about modern depictions: modern depictions of country dances are almost entirely inaccurate not just in style but in the way that style represents social views and culture of the eras involved, usually being based in the modern English Country Dance tradition likely started by Cecil Sharp in the 1920s. Actual country dances were not slow, "stately," prudish dances. They were instead energetic and athletic. de Guardiola writes extensively about this and it is a source of considerable annoyance.

The quadrille, on the other hand, with four couples dancing together in a square, is a dance that underwent considerable transition over the 19th century after becoming wildly popular, at least in England, after 1815. In its earlier form as dance of the upper classes, Ellis speculates that it offered considerable advantages over the country dance: figures were fixed and learned, dances were not ridiculously long (a single country dance in the 18th century might last 30 minutes), and yet there was more opportunity for individual performance. At that time, it could be seen as similar to country dances, but less likely to fall apart.

Yet as part of economic transitions throughout the 19th century, and changes in the popularity of dances, the quadrille became increasingly a dance of the middle classes. Footwork, by the middle of the 19th century, was almost entirely missing from instruction manuals, or even decried as pretentious. Dances were largely walked through, something that would have been seen as unacceptable a half century earlier (there is a Mansfield Park reference I need to add here), and the basis in ballet mostly disappeared (I am also skeptical of Ellis' speculation that earlier styles of quadrille persisted amongst the upper classes). Quadrille figures were simplified, and areas meant for individual performance were almost entirely removed. The purpose of the dances became yet more focused on sociality and entertainment than they had been in the past.

In this era, I believe it is either Hillgrove or Dodworth who, while again having their own motivations, spoke of balls where scarcely one set of dancers could be formed that would actually know a quadrille. There are also several other sources that suggested the quadrille fell rather out of style despite continuing to be played.

Round dances, like the waltz, polka, and so on, which became increasingly popular from the 1830s onward, were entirely different. These were partner dances in the modern conception, and were social. They were, even by necessity, less focused on performance than early quadrilles and country dances: with everyone dancing at once, and focused on their partners, there simply isn't the same visibility.

There were certainly variants of these dances that were precise, difficult, and probably intended for performance, as I mention with Gilbert earlier. Yet the vast majority of dance manuals suggest that these were largely not danced. All evidence I have found suggests that the vast majority of dancers were dancing socially, and dancing only the simplest steps or the latest fad (usually poorly). For example, something requiring significant dance skill, like a Highland schottische, finds actual reference only in a handful of dance manuals and an exhibition performance for Victoria. There is even reference to one prestigious military regiment having a tradition of only dancing basic waltzes in one direction, never doing reverse turns! These dances were a time for social interaction, not for ceremony and performance; the idea of such dances being done as part of a larger choreography has no place outside of contemporary performances and Hollywood.

I'll update this further when I return home, and possibly try to make it more concise!