Talk:Brass monkey (colloquial expression)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is simply not true, what's the appropriate tag? According to [1], this is an urban legend. Does stuff like this go up for vfd? The legend itself isn't notable enough for its own page... perhaps I have answered my own question there. I'll put in a vfd tag in a little bit if there's no compelling reason not to. - Chairboy 03:40, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 This is not a British expression 2 Most likely origins 3 Vote for Deletion 4 Physics 5 Anecdote 6 Nautical History regarding brass monkey 7 Blinking brass monkeys! 7.1 quoting Quinion 7.2 Naval terminology 7.3 Nautical terminology 8 New direction 8.1 citation needed 9 Not entirely convinced to the contrary

[edit] This is not a British expression

I've removed the statement that this is a "British colloquial expression". The first reference clearly states that it is not confined solely to Great Britain. Jonathan de Boyne Pollard 22:51, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Most likely origins

I've removed the text that states, without attribution, what the "most likely" origin is, leaving the original text that attributed such opinions on the likeliness of origins to named people. Jonathan de Boyne Pollard 22:54, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vote for Deletion

This article survived a Vote for Deletion. The discussion can be found here. -Splash 02:24, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

"Brass Monkeys" are a classic saying - whether only in Britain or in other english speaking countries i know not, but in modern day colloquial use the term is meant to refer to part of the male reproductive anatomy and its generally used in reference to the coldness of the weather ("its brass monkeys") or in regard to someones confidence ("he must have brass monkeys"). From what i remember from my grandfathers navy day stories, it was used pretty much the same back then too...

[edit] Physics

I removed the following claim, as its author did not understand the relative coefficients of linear expansion and contraction of different metals (iron vs. brass), which notion gave rise to this folk etymology.

# The physics simply do not stand up to scrutiny. All of the balls would contract equally, and the contraction of both balls and plate over the range of temperatures involved would not be particularly large. The effect claimed possibly could be reproduced under laboratory conditions with objects engineered to a high precision for this purpose, but it is unlikely it would ever have occurred in real life aboard a warship.

I have seen this claim made. Can you produce detailed calculations? PatGallacher 16:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anecdote

I moved this paragraph here both because it contradicts the rest of the article and because it is written in the first person. -- Nick 21:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Contribution 17:30, 7 February 2007 Nosekud

FD. I spent a week during each of the summers of 1963, 4 & 5 aboard the Training Ship Foudroyant (Formerly HMS Trincomalee) at Portsmouth. Among the many old artifacts on board were a few triangular brass plates with substantial raised edges. I was told these were "Brass Monkeys" made to hold 3 (not 4) cannonballs. The fighting force of a frigate such as the Trincomalee were mainly Marines and such ships carried only a small number of guns and a small crew of seamen. Unlike larger ships, the crew of a frigate did not include young lads who would act as powder or shot monkeys. Shot was kept on the deck alongside the cannon.

In cold weather, waves and sea spray would wash over the flat open deck. Ice would form on the brass monkey, The balls would freeze ON to it. In those conditions it would be cold enough to "Freeze the balls ON a brass monkey".

[edit] Nautical History regarding brass monkey

• Some additional mention of discredit or de-mystification of cannon balls and brass monkeys can be found in the archived U.S. Naval History FAQ regarding this specific topic. Specifically, it is that the usage of "freezing of brass monkey" and releasing cannon balls onto the deck is mostly Nautical myth among sailors, seamen, Marines et. al. Nick mentions that brass would freeze under conditions, or rather cannon balls would likely freeze onto the brass. (Not trying to attack or discredit Nick in anyway, just historical documentations as proposed by the U.S. Navy. As a disclaimer, IMHO, first hand experience (Nick) is much more accurate than historical accounts as recorded by third party researchers.) That having been said... The Naval FAQ proposes that in part, the term may have been coined as a result of nautical myth. The FAQ response continues to recite that tradition held that, not the brass monkey (which I always held to be true), but rather the cannon balls themselves contracted at a faster rate than brass, thus making it possible for the cannon balls to roll out of the "brass-monkey". Anyway, it's a proposed theory. I'm including the U.S. Navy's URL: History.Navy.Mil

155.98.242.152 15:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Ooops... forgot to log on... Jerry Zambrano

[edit] Blinking brass monkeys!

I really find the layout of this article most peculiar. Cannonballs actually has a heading, even though purely speculative, and under that heading are all the known examples of early referance to the phrase, which plainly have no reference to canonballs. --Amandajm 06:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] quoting Quinion

I had rewritten the intro before I looked up Quinion. I presumed that he was a fairly minor citation in this subject, since his name was creditted beneath those "Snopes" who said (according to what is written here but i haven't checked yet) that they didn't know.

OK! Quinion was quoted as saying the monkey was "something solid and inert".

Solid and inert, but what? The Wiki editor who quoted Quinion leaves out what Quinion most importantly said- "Three Wise Monkeys".

Let me repeat- Quinion, who appears to be the only real expert here said, of the Three Wise Monkeys (commonly cast in brass as I have written in the article), "It’s more than likely the term came from them, as an image of something solid and inert that could only be affected by extremes."

So how did we manage to lose that crucial piece of information, and instead quote "Snopes" who don't know what a brass monkey is.

--Amandajm 08:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Naval terminology

It doesn't belong here. It's relevant to monkeys. It's relevant to the Navy. It's not relevant to freezing a brass monkey's balls off!

I have slightly editted the intro to this and placed it here for transfer to a more pertinent site, about naval terminology or some such.

[edit] Nautical terminology

The term "monkey" has a number of uses in nautical terminology, as follows:

• "monkey" —
  • a small coastal trading vessel of the 16th century and 17th century, single masted with a square sail
  • a small wooden cask in which grog was carried after issue from a grog-tub to the seamen's messes in the Royal Navy
  • a type of marine steam reciprocating engine where two engines were used together in tandem on the same propeller shaft
  • a sailor whose job involved climbing and moving swiftly (which usage dates from 1858)
  • a kind of gun or cannon (which usage dates from 1650)
• "monkey boat" — a narrow vessel used on canals (also dates from 1858).
• "monkey gaff" — a small gaff on large merchant vessels.
• "monkey jacket" — a close fitting jacket worn by sailors
• "monkey fist" — the end of a line when tied into a knot or ball, used to give weight to the line for heaving (still in use today)
• "monkey spars" — small masts and yards on vessels used for the "instruction and exercise of boys"
• "monkey pump" — a straw used to suck the liquid from a small hole in a cask
• "monkey block" — a block used in the rigging of sailing ships
• "monkey island" — a ship's upper bridge
• "monkey drill" — calisthenics by naval personnel (which usage dates from 1895)
• "monkey march" — close order march by US Marine Corps personnel (which usage dates from 1952)
• "monkey tail" — a short hand spike, use to aim a carronade
• "powder monkey" — a boy who on a warship carried gun powder from the magazine to the cannon and performed other ordnance duties (which usage dates from 1682).

--Amandajm 08:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New direction

Most of the information was here already. but.. The article has been re-structured so that it moves from what we do know to what is speculated, rather than the other way around. It moves from the opinion of the expert, to the theories which the expert rejects, rather than the other way around.

Th article now talks about what a "real" brass monkey is, and proposes, in agreement with an expert, that it is the source of the expression. It quotes known uses of the expression "brass monkey" as having intrinsic value to the subject and its definition, not simply in order to refute an idea rejected both by the article and the expert being quoted.

It gives validity to the opinion of an expert who knows, rather than quoting a source that say it doesn't know.

I have removed tags that say "original research" and replaced them with tags saying "citation needed". There is a difference! --Amandajm 09:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] citation needed

What is the source for the theory about the tray and the cannonballs? It needs to be turned into an inline cite, or else have the source quoted directly in the text. --Amandajm 08:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Fixed this with a reference to the US Navy that cites the story, then refutes it. --Amandajm 10:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not entirely convinced to the contrary

Nick's account of having been told that the brass trays were called monkeys and the suggestion that the saying was "cold enough to freeze the balls on a brass monkey", rather than "off a brass monkey" sounds fairly convincing.

However, this first hand account is not backed up by documentation. Where as, all the skeptical views are. The difference between freezing the balls on a monkey and freezing the balls off a monkey is simply a matter of second and third degree damage for the primate involved. Either way, it probably results in a neutered monkey.

However, if we are talking about science involving the different contraction rates of metal and whether or not it could be reproduced in lab conditions and so on and so forth, then there is a very big difference between whether the balls are frozen off the monkey, or frozen onto it.

A "brass monkey" as an object to hold cannonballs, would not need to be a solid metal plate with indentations. It could be a brass triangle similar to a billiards rack. The businees about the balls not being stacked on the deck all the time, because they would rust is true, but is nonsense as a refutation for the theory. The fact is, that the balls were on the deck at least some of the time, in times of battle, and in times of danger. At such times, they were surely not just rolling around the deck.

While larger, well armed ships may have had numerous cannons and cannon ports on a lower deck, the majority of lightly armed vessels had two guns, on the upper deck. The balls for those guns had to be on the deck when needed. Where were they? presumably in a brass triangle affair that held at least four balls. Why four, not three as Nick says? Because three balls fit into a triangle and the fourth ball sits neatly into the space on top of the other three, with no danger of it rolling away.

And yes, in very cold weather, when icicles were hanging from the spars, no doubt the balls would be frozen onto the "whatever it is that you call the triangular rack that the balls sit in".

This may sound very contradictory of me, having just rewritten this article from the point of view of the "experts" a linguist and a naval museum, but i have to ask the question.

Does anybody know for sure that the triangle that held cannonballs on the deck (ready for use when needed) was not called a "monkey". If it wasn't called a "monkey", what was it called?

I do not accept that the naval explanation is not feasible The evidence given by the naval museum only looks at the "off" factor, not at the quotation of Nick above that the balls were frozen "on" the monkey, not "off" it. I think that the that little word "off" has steered the whole blinking vessel onto the rocks.

The Theory that I would like to put forward is that both origins of the expression are feasible. That indeed the little Chinese brass monkeys made a contribution, but that at some point, a seaman with a sense of humour applied it, in a sense that had real meaning, in naval terms.

Or vice versa, the naval vulgarity (and I have no doubt it was a vulgarity, even if it had practical meaning), was softened for a literary public. While Shakespeare was perfectly able to say "Tell your pleasant prince this mock of his has changed his balls to gunstones", (Henry V, upon receiving a box of tennis balls as a gift from the French Dauphin), no 19th century writer could refer to the monkey's balls in a novel. Only his nose, tail or some other euphemism.

Moreover, the sailor who said that it was "cold enough to freeze the balls on a brass monkey" when he was at sea, probably retained the expression when he was at shore with his wife and kids, but broke it down because it wasn't what one wanted the toddler to repeat to the vicar's wife.

With the prevalence of brass monkeys, brought home as souvennirs, it would be easy to mistake the type of monkey that was meant. Which brings it around in a circle.

One more point- one reason why I suspect that the nose, tail etc is euphemistic, rather than referring to the "three wise monkeys" is that the tails of Japanese monkeys are negligible, and real brass monkeys are almost never depicted as having them.

--Amandajm 10:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Nautical or Naughty?

Although I am not sure further research into this charming expression is really worth the trouble, there is some evidence that the term is quite recent. http://seatalk.blogspot.com/2005/12/garlands-and-brass-monkeys.html I researched that article a few years ago, and it still seems to hold up.

Alanmike 23:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

One of the questions that I posed above was "whatever it is that you call the triangular rack that the balls sit in". Alanmike has supplied the answer that it was a "garland".

I find this term very interesting as the object described in the article cited by Mike has know similarity to a "garland" whatsoever. A garland was a circlet of something, perhaps flowers, but perhaps a gold coronet or a circlet of rope. In the latter sense the term was applied nautically to a rope or metal band around a spar and also to a ring of rope holding cannon balls on the deck.

This use of the word must have become very well established for it ultimately to be used for a wooden stand with indentations to hold cannon balls, an object bearing no similarity to a ring of rope, but serving the same purpose.

The article cited by Alanmike describes these things as being of wood, but Nick (above) states that he saw cannonball holders made of brass. And we really have no reason to doubt it..

So, my questions are these-

• If a thing that is triangular and wooden with indentations to hold cannonballs can be called a "garland" (bearing no resemblance to the rope garland at all), could this same object, by association with the lads that carried powder, or some other association unknown, also be known as a "monkey"? If not, why not?
• And if it has been known, in various places and from time to time as a "monkey", then is not the similar object, when made of brass, a "brass monkey".
• And would it not be possible for cannonballs to be frozen onto it, thereby having weather that was "cold enough to freeze the balls on a brass monkey?

My personal opinion is that the topic has not been sufficiently researched if it is only the "off" factor that has been considered. If no-one has researched the "on" factor then we still don't know.

We need to consider what Nick has been told, and make changes if necessary. Not an easy thing to do when we have written an informative article, but, well, it happens all the time on wikipedia! Amandajm 10:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)