Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 February 10

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

February 10

Men who lost virginity to prostitutes

Who are some famous historical figures who lost their virginity to prostitutes? --Jscheiner (talk) 01:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Does Anthony Kiedis count as a famous historical figure? Adam Bishop (talk) 06:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I seem to have heard that Peter Ustinov's father pursuaded his son to do so. Have no evidence though.--Johnluckie (talk) 07:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Upon further searching, apparently Anthony Kiedis was not with a prostitute, but his father's girlfriend. Ah well. However, googling "lost his virginity to a prostitute" turns up [1], which includes Steven Tyler, Jerry Springer, and Oliver Stone, as well as other results for James Joyce, Marvin Gaye, Dennis Rodman, Ricky Nelson, Chris De Burgh, Che Guevarra, Leo Tolstoy, Napoleon...I want to say that the further back in history you go, the more likely it is that a young man in the urban merchant class would have lost it to a prostitute, but I can't think of any examples to back that up (Benvenuto Cellini, perhaps? Or am I confusing artistic models and prostitutes...) Adam Bishop (talk) 17:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

David Niven. AllenHansen (talk) 11:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Charlie Sheen, Russell Brand, John F. Kennedy, Roger Ebert, Bryan Cranston, H.G. Wells, James Boswell, Jerry Lewis, Benito Mussolini, Thomas Wolfe, Ayrton Senna.

Ludwig Andreas Feuerbach's definition of God

What was Ludwig Andreas Feuerbach's definition and concept of God. How did he see Jesus and the trinity in relating to this idea. What is the major difference between is view of God or the Absolute and Hegels? --Gary123 (talk) 01:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

You will find some of the signposts towards an answer in the article on Ludwig Andreas Feuerbach, Gary, but if you want detailed insight you really have to read The Essence of Christianity, his most important book. For Feuerbach, religion was no more than a consciousness of the infinite, with God being an outward projection of humanity's own inward nature. For Hegel, the Creator, the Absolute or God is both in nature and greater than nature. In contrast, Feuerbach's beliefs come close to outright atheism, though he always denied this. His social anthropology of religion was a strong influence on David Strauss, author of The Life of Jesus Critically Examined. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Virgin Islands

How come the U.S. Virgin Islands hold a Democratic party caucus when they don't get to vote for President? —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 07:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Residents of the USVI don't get to vote in the Presidential election, but the Democratic Party of the Virgin Islands and Republican Party of the Virgin Islands do get to send delegates to their respective national conventions. FiggyBee (talk) 08:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

As do residents of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa and Democrats Abroad. Republicans Abroad do not have representation at the convention. Corvus cornix_talk 21:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Democrats and Republicans abroad, though, at least can vote in the presidential election. It's just surprising that people who have no say in electing the president have a say in deciding who gets to run for president. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 22:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, anyone (well, any 35-year-old natural-born American who has lived in the US for 14 years and hasn't been President for more than 6 years or been impeached) can run. It's just that the Democratic and Republican nominees are the only people who have any chance of winning. FiggyBee (talk) 04:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

US-Canada relations; Parliamentarians and Royalists, not Whigs and Tories?

How much of the differing 17th century establishments went into making these two nations different, yet more or less composed of the same ethnic type of people? How much of Restoration government had sway over the American colonies? Was it only successfully re-established in what's now Canada, because those were planted during the French and Indian Wars, since the joint reign of William and Mary? (By the way, the Whig Party didn't last long in America, more to the probable evidence of post-Cromwellian influence having little impact.) In an American history textbook, it says that a Congressional committee proposed to address George Washington as: "His Highness the President of the United States and Protector of the Rights of the Same". Considering US involvement with the present day Commonwealth, how much is this country institutionally Cromwellian, vis a vis Caroline? It's a supposition by some theorists, whom are figuring it was typically diehard Jeffersonian Republican sentiment that kept the US out of the later Imperial Commonwealth after Cecil Rhodes envisioned a complete merger, much like the Irish secession. I'm asking for your perception on the matter. Did the US simply eschew both Monarchy and Protectorate, merely retaining a basic commonwealth ideal (as expressed in the title of ex-colony among some like Virginia, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts, rather than state)? If the US is in fact a Cromwellian manifesto realized, then the tradition of appending Cromwell's personal coat of arms to those of the country seems to have been adopted when the District of Columbia was given Washington's arms. I'm delving into Hamiltonian Federalism here, which called for a strong executive and basically, aristocratic Puritan interests in economy. 24.255.11.149 (talk) 07:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh not again... you may find it helpful to google "how do I ask a question without rambling on and on about other things unrelated to the original question and without shoe-horning 20-30 other tangential questions into the same overall question in such a way as to make the reader of the created meta-spaghetti-question actually understand what you're saying for once instead of mentally crying out in anguish every time they see you post a question on the reference desk", HTH. 86.21.74.40 (talk) 08:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Nasty is as nasty does. 24.255.11.149 (talk) 10:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, the question is wordy to the point that people won't want to bother parsing it and answering it. I'm surely not going to try. The Evil Spartan (talk) 10:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

tl;dr hotclaws 10:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I would love to try to respond to your series of questions, 24.555..., but I really cannot figure out what you want to know. I think that you would get a better response if you could confine yourself to one question at a time. Try to decide the main question you want to ask, and just ask that, in a single sentence. I would be happy to respond. For now, I will just say that Canada and the United States have very different political histories. Each was founded at a different time and in a different historical context. Neither of them was founded at the time of Cromwell, so it is probably a mistake to analyze the constitutions and political cultures of either through the prism of the politics of more than a century earlier. As for Whigs and Tories, these two parties were in their infancy at the time of the founding of the United States, and they differed politically primarily over domestic British issues rather than over the relationship between Britain and its colonies when the United States gained independence. I'm not sure how useful it is to try to draw parallels between very distinct political and historical contexts. Marco polo (talk) 19:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a serious interest among academics and patriots who look for the ultimate source of framework behind America's government. It is assumed, although not taken for granted, that in the absence of monarchy, the Founding Fathers (known as Whigs) fell back upon the Cromwellian precedent. 24.255.11.149 (talk) 20:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

While I was considering a response to this, Clio expressed her alarm or exasperation. She is probably more knowledgeable about this than I, so it may be foolish for me to venture a response, but it seems here as if your question is "Did the Founding Fathers use the Cromwellian precedent as a basis for the U.S. presidency?" If this is the question, then I think that the answer is no. Certainly the Founding Fathers were familiar with the history of the English Commonwealth, but I hardly think that they saw it or Cromwell's role as a model. Cromwell took on dictatorial powers that the framers of the Constitution were at pains to avoid granting to the president. Instead, I think that their mental starting point was probably the contemporary constitutional monarchy of Britain. The president was to be a kind of elected constitutional monarch whose powers were carefully and explicitly limited by the constitution and for whose family there would be no question of hereditary status. In this, they were no doubt partly inspired by the "Whig canon", but I think that it would be farfetched to suppose that they saw Cromwell as a model. Rather, I think that they aimed to create a new institution informed by historical experience, not an institution simply modeled after a past precedent. Marco polo (talk) 01:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; that's more like it! Then, how about a Constitutional Protectorate and that the country itself would be inspired by the Commonwealth? Weren't there monarchist conspiracies with regards to possibly anointing members of the royal family, including even Bonnie Prince Charlie or some Continental European dynasties? I'm thinking that the Jeffersonians in particular, wanted no "taint" of monarchy and Washington himself went out of the way to dispell fears about his position. There was to be no "King of the United States", because at least three of the colonies viewed themselves as "commonwealths". The ex-colonists basically did not want to have Machiavelli's The Prince or the Hobbesian Leviathan (book) serve as the model for their government, right? Jefferson's gallomania and the French looking to the English Civil War for inspiration to their Revolutionary Wars is rather well known. Maybe then, the French failed to learn from the past, on the nature of republicanism. But with all this talk of republicanism, look here:

Hamilton's Plan

On June 18 Alexander Hamilton presented his own ideal plan of government. Erudite and polished, the speech, nevertheless, failed to win a following. It went too far. Calling the British government "the best in the world," Hamilton proposed a model strikingly similar an executive to serve during good behavior or life with veto power over all laws; a senate with members serving during good behavior; the legislature to have power to pass "all laws whatsoever." Hamilton later wrote to Washington that the people were now willing to accept "something not very remote from that which they have lately quitted." What the people had "lately quitted," of course, was monarchy. Some members of the convention fully expected the country to turn in this direction. Hugh Williamson of North Carolina, a wealthy physician, declared that it was "pretty certain . . . that we should at some time or other have a king." Newspaper accounts appeared in the summer of 1787 alleging that a plot was under way to invite the second son of George III, Frederick, Duke of York, the secular bishop of Osnaburgh in Prussia, to become "king of the United States."

http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_history.html

• Prince_Henry_of_Prussia#Proposal_for_King_of_United_States
• Prince_Frederick,_Duke_of_York_and_Albany#Army

Having determined what the United States needed was a king, a powerful group of American political figures - James Monroe, Alexander Hamilton and Nathaniel Green, president of the Continental Congress, among others, wrote to 50-year-old Prince Henry of Prussia, younger brother of Frederick the Great, and invited him to become king of the United States (at the suggestion of Revolutionary War hero Baron von Steuben). Prince Henry vacillated, and by the time he gave his uncertain reply the Americans had decided to have an elected president rather than a constitutional monarch.

http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/VA-news/VA-Pilot/issues/1996/vp960811/08090635.htm

It appears that the UK gave up on reincorporating the US after the American Civil War, so allowed Canada to become its own country and proper relations of respect and equality between the UK & US were not established until the 20th century, some saying after the Spanish-American War, when the British Empire was actually impressed (and subsquently adopted the title Commonwealth, possibly to please the Americans). Until then, it appears that the American Presidency did not in fact have the respect or institutional bedrock it does today, but rested on shaky ground and prone to the loyalist sentiment of Anglomania. George Washington, after all, hoisted the Grand Union Flag just as other Continentals worked hard at the Olive Branch Petition. Apparently, it was the Jeffersonians who were determined to sever ties. So, my perception is that there was no official form for the presidency or the nature of the government until the American Civil War forced the issue on how things were going to be, decided on the battlefield. Before then, it was merely experimental, prone to being expressed along a wide spectrum of approach. This is similar to the evolution of the British Empire and now they are both part of this "Anglosphere", as partners. 24.255.11.149 (talk) 02:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The Merry Monarch?

I've not long finished reading Antonia Fraser's biography of Charles II. In general I'm far less impressed than I was by her book on Cromwell, which seemed altogether more scholarly and detached. She says of Charles that he was "wity, kind graceful and tolerant and essentially loveable". This would certainly seem to be reflected in his "Merry Monarch" label, but what I would like to know is how acurate this view is, and how succesful Charles was as a ruler and as a politician? I would also like to undertake some more reading on the subject, and would be grateful for recommendations on more recent biographical treatments. Has Bean (talk) 08:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Has Bean, I have lived for so long with the Merry Monarch that I'm not really sure If I have the necessary objectivity to answer your question! However, I simply cannot resist a challenge.

To begin with you really have to set the Antonia Fraser view to one side. I should stress that this is not said out of intellectual snobbery, or through any sense of condescension towards a popular-justifiably popular-historian and writer. I, too, enjoyed Cromwell, Our Chief of Men. I enjoyed Mary Queen of Scots, one of the first history biographies I ever read, even more. However, as you have clearly understood, King Charles II is not among her best work. It's almost as if, having trudged with skill and sober determination through the life of Cromwell, she decided to have her own Restoration jamboree!

So, what was Charles really like as a man and a ruler? The early Whig historians had no doubt about this, going so far as to describe him as one of the most criminal princes in all of English history, whose reign was, in the words of one, 'a disgrace to our country.' The 'Merry Monarch' school grew up as a corrective to this rather dour reaction. The truth is closer, I suppose, to the Whig view: Charles was far from admirable as a man, showing many of the worst personality traits, including cynicism, meanness and simple dishonesty. His reign was also far from admirable, a time when England was at its lowest point in Europe, judged in political and military terms. He began his reign with every possible advantage, including a Parliament solidly behind the throne. Yet, within a few years of the Restoration, growing distrust of the court, and of Charles' motives and policies, led to a poisonous political atmosphere, which finally came to a head in the Popish Plot, the greatest political crisis of the reign. Charles' rule in Scotland, moreover, was marked by brutality and increasing religious persecution; a time when methods were used to suppress dissent later perfected on the Continent by Louis XIV. Above all, his foreign policy, and his military campaigns were disastrous. Writing about the Raid on the Medway, one poet managed to combine comment on this with the king's well-established reputation for debauchery;

So our great prince, when the Dutch fleet arriv'd

Saw his ships burn and, as they burn'd, he swiv'd.

So kind was he in our extremist need,

He would those flames extinguish with his seed.

Yet, having said this, while Charles was often responsible for the troubles of his reign, he had the political and personal skills to end these troubles to his advantage, skills which his father and his brother so obviously lacked. By this measure, and by this measure alone, his achievements are worthy of note, allowing him to end his reign in relative peace. He was at his best, his most skilful, during the tensions induced by the Popish Plot, giving way when he had to give way, standing strong when he had to stand strong. In the end he completely outmaneuvered his opponents, the great combination known as the Whigs, which had grown up to oppose the policies of the throne, and might very well have destroyed the monarchy itself. And this was no mean achievement; for it involved the defeat of Anthony Ashley Cooper, 1st Earl of Shaftesbury, one of the first truly great party leaders in English history; a dangerous politician and a dangerous man.

Charles greatest talent, his genius, perhaps, was in his appreciation of the realities of political power within his three kingdoms. Here his sense of realism and, indeed, his cynicism, worked to best effect, allowing him to play the system to the advantage of the Crown. He was also arguably the first king in English history to understand the importance of appealing to and managing public opinion. He was a survivor, which is probably the greatest compliment one can make about any Stuart king on the English throne!

For a sobering antidote to Fraser's enthusiasm I would suggest you read Charles the Second; King of England, Scotland and Ireland by Ronald Hutton. I think you will find that it is worth the effort. Good luck! Clio the Muse (talk) 01:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey man, this is great!!! You really seem to know the subject. I will certainly make a point of looking for the book you mention. Has Bean (talk) 09:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

symbols

My literature teacher asked my class to find symbols of fear, but i couldn't find any.... can you help me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.8.11 (talk) 10:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

does it have to a literary reference, or can it be a symbol in popular culture? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.117.186 (talk) 10:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

it can be a symbol in popular culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.8.11 (talk) 11:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

If you mean symbols that inspire fear, image-wise look at skull and crossbones, Nazi swastika and other occupation symbols, nuclear waste (the three propellor kind), anything to do with death and disease like contamination signs. For auditory symbols, warning sirens; gestures are something else (see The Scream by Edvard Munch). Otherwise, you need to clarify. (BTW keep the thread together by clicking on the little blue edit link on the right of this section, opposite the heading, and write your answer at the bottom.) Julia Rossi (talk) 12:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

As an interesting side note, it was recently determined by the IAEA that the nuclear radiation trefoil did not inspire fear in people who hadn't been sufficiently educated as to what it meant, and as a consequence they have adopted a new radiation warning symbol that more easily conveys its effects to people with less education (including children). --98.217.18.109 (talk) 16:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

And, the article Hazard symbol. Julia Rossi (talk) 12:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Plewds and agitrons, especially together. See The Lexicon of Comicana. --Milkbreath (talk) 16:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The colour red has long been associated with a hightened sense of fear and anxiety. During the French Revolution the red flag was flown to denote a state of emergency, and was subsequently adopted by Socialist and Communist movements. There are also symbolic gestures in popular culture, intended to induce fear. I can think of a fist, clenched and shaken in anger, and a finger drawn across a throat. I'm sure there are others. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

In a more literary way, the archetypal symbols of fear are ghosts. They represent man's fear of the unknown and uncontrollable, and are near universal in their use as symbols of something to flee from. Steewi (talk) 00:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Am surprised that nobody mentioned either darkness or night. AllenHansen (talk) 14:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Rabbi Moritz Gudemann's brother-in-law

Towards the end of June 1889, the Viennese Rabbi Dr. Moritz Gudemann's brother-in-law who lived in Magdeburg died. Can any user please tell me the name of this brother-in-law and the exact date of his death. Thank you. Simonschaim (talk) 11:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

First world war race riots

What was the reason for the racial tension and riots in the period 1917 to 1919 on both sides of the Atlantic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.83.191 (talk) 13:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The biggest U.S. riot was after the war (Chicago riot of 1919). There were a lot of particular local causes for such clashes, but you could say that part of the general background was that rising black expectations clashed with U.S. politics taking a hard right turn (see Palmer raid etc.). Not sure there were "race riots" in Europe -- there were abortive revolutions and ethnically motivated conflicts at various levels. AnonMoos (talk) 15:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

One of the issues in the United States was that African American soldiers were returning from service in Europe and elsewhere. Many African Americans felt that since they had put their lives on the line for the United States, they deserved equal rights as citizens. The determination of the white majority and their political leaders to deny those rights led to some violent clashes. Marco polo (talk) 19:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

For the United States have a look at the page on the Red Summer of 1919, which lists the various riots and offers some explanation for their cause. The war had the effect of increasing patters of migration away from rural areas, especially in the South, towards the great northern industrial centres, like Chicago. It's estimated that as many as 450,000 black people (sorry, being English I simply cannot bring myself to write 'African-American!) migrated during the war, with the population in Chicago doubling in size, and that of New York by some 60%. In Britain and France, which called heavily on their colonies for labour and fighting men, the black population also increased sharply. Racial tensions caused serious incidents in Dijon and Brest in 1917. In Britain post war pressures over employment led to minor riots in Glasgow, Liverpool, Cardiff and elsewhere, port areas where there was a particularly heavy concentration of new migrant workers. Less severe than those in the United States, the causes were still very much the same: competition for jobs, competition for housing and competition for services. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Sunni Madhhabs

What is the differences between Hanafis, Shafi'is, Hanbalis and Malikis? In what? Is their way of prayers are different, is their interpretation of the Qur'an is different? Is their rituals different? What is it that they are different from each other in order to claim themselves as Hanafis, Hanbalis, Shafi'is and Malikis? I know that Indonesians and Somalis are Shafi'i, I know that Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Iranians, Iraqis and Afghanis are Hanafis, I know that Saudis, Qataris and Emiratis are Hanbalis and Moroccan, Algerians and Tunisians are Malikis. Please answer my questions if you could with your of Islam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Mustafa (talk • contribs) 14:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Did you look at Madhhab... AnonMoos (talk) 15:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It didn't say the differences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Mustafa (talk • contribs) 15:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

To find the differences, click on the blue use of each of the words Hanafi, Hanbali, Shafi'i and Maliki, here or in the article Madhhab, you will likely find what you are looking for. ៛ Bielle (talk) 16:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Culture of Somalia and Bangladesh

I heard that in Somalia, their culture in marriage is that a man can have four wives in one house, right? Then, what about Bangladesh, how many wives does a man can have? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Mustafa (talk • contribs) 15:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

"Googling "Bangladesh, # of wives" led to a U.S. State Department memo dated 2003 [2] that said:

Under the Muslim Family Ordinance, . . . (M)men are permitted to have up to four wives, although society strongly discourages , and it rarely is practiced. Laws provide some protection for women against arbitrary divorce and the taking of additional wives by husbands without the first wife's consent, but the protections generally apply only to registered marriages. Marriages in rural areas sometimes are not registered because of ignorance of the law. Under the law, a Muslim husband is required to pay his ex-wife alimony for 3 months, but this law is not always enforced.

How accurrate this is, I am not in a position to know. ៛ Bielle (talk) 23:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

As a side note, although Islamic moral codes do allow multiple wives, it comes with the warning that all wives must be provided for equally and properly as a restriction. Steewi (talk) 01:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Identifying a piece of music

There's a piece of well-known classical music I'm trying to identify - I hummed it here. Can anybody help me? --Ludraman (talk) 16:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It's the Rondo alla turca from Mozart's Piano Sonata No. 11. There's an audio file of it at the bottom of that article (it's the last one). —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 16:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks. --Ludraman (talk) 23:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

hi, may i please have a nonexclusive right to make use of your rendition? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.51.122.22 (talk) 18:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

If you're talking about the synthesized recording found at commons:Image:Rondo Alla Turka.ogg, it's in the public domain so you don't need to ask anyone's permission to use it. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 22:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe he's talking about the OP's delightfully hummed rendition of the song. --Emery (talk) 01:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Readable Classics

I have been attempting to read some classic literature, but I find that my choices are pretty hit and miss. For instance I read the Art of War in one sitting, while I found the Analects of Confucius to be interesting at first, but repetitive. Another example would be that I really enjoyed the Anabasis by Xenophon which was an interesting adventure, but found his Hellenica to be not so good, it seemed to be way too much about troop movements, an I just don't have time to slog through it to find parts that I might find more interesting. I also didn't particularly like Herodotus. So I guess what I am trying to say, is that would prefer works that are more pointed, and personal, and I am hoping that you experts might help suggest some works, and why you like them.

P.S. No need to restrict yourselves to ancient times, but I am not particularly interested in writings by modern writers. I guess, in the end I am looking for works that allow me to see the world through the eyes of people of the past. Thanks, --Czmtzc (talk) 17:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

You could try The Pillow Book by Sei Shōnagon, a collection of poetic observations, anecdotes and musings by a very intelligent, erudite, brilliant and extremely snobbish ("the way carpenters eat is not very charming..." [3]) Japanese court lady (Sei Shōnagon, The Pillow Book, London, UK: Penguin Books, ISBN 0140448063). 194.171.56.13 (talk) 17:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm very much enjoying Don Quixote, which has what you're looking for and some delicious slapstick to boot. Random Nonsense (talk) 18:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I almost never agree with reading an abridged of a book, but Don Quixote is one book I think it is forgivable to read in abridgment. . . --S.dedalus (talk) 23:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It may help if you can read them in the original language...I find it difficult to read classics in translation. They're so boring, especially translations from Latin. Virgil and Catullus are completely dreadful in translation. But oh well. Roman historians can be pretty interesting, when they're talking more about social history than military or political stuff (like Livy, sometimes). How about a Renaissance Man? I just mentioned him elsewhere on the RD - Benvenuto Cellini, who wrote a bizarre autobiography in the 16th century. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

There's a brilliant Penguin edition of Arabian Nights out at the moment. It's riduculously gripping as a text, and you find your self quite at home in an ancient world without even noticing you've gone there. (ISBN: 0140442898.) Joshua.c.j (talk) 19:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

You might try the writings of Julius Caesar. Corvus cornix_talk 21:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Corvus, did you actually enjoy reading Caesar? In which case I commend you for it: you are the only person I have ever come across who has! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to confess that I haven't read much of it.  :) Corvus cornix_talk 02:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a note about Confucian analects and other Chinese classics: the books themselves may seem short for their significance, and that's because often what is just as important as - or even more important than - the text itself is the commentary, built up over the centuries by scholars in the field, elaborating and expanding on the idea of the original text. Traditional version of the texts would come with a particular version of inline commentary. I don't know how many translations preserve this. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• Siddhartha by Hermann Hesse
• The Bhagavad Gita
• The Tao Te Ching
• Divine Comedy by Dante Alighieri
• The Iliad and the Odyssey by Homer
• Metamorphoses by Ovid
• Aeneid by Virgil

For something slightly more modern you might so try War and Peace; a wonderful and enthralling novel despite its reputation for being difficult. --S.dedalus (talk) 23:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Czmtzc, did you read my response to the above question on The Secret History by Procopius? I'm not altogether sure what exactly it is that you are looking for, but this is one of the raciest, most scurrilous political texts in all of classical literature; no, sorry, in all literature. Try to imagine, if you will, coming across a work of pornography written by an eminent modern historian under a pseudonym. Then you might begin to understand something of the impact of this little book, a real page-turner! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to add Beowulf, Njal's Saga and Les Miserables. I haven't read Njal's Saga, but I understand it's one of the more important of the Norse Sagas. Steewi (talk) 01:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Among other things, I like to dip into Marcus Aurelius' Meditations – he's strangely modern in the way he reflects on going through stuff. Julia Rossi (talk) 08:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

For a compulsively readable book giving insight into a past era, I always like to recommend Histoire de ma vie by Giacomo Casanova. To get some other ideas, you might have a look at the books Classics for Pleasure by Michael Dirda and Classics Revisited and More Classics Revisited by Kenneth Rexroth. Deor (talk) 21:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll stick to the pedantically classic, ie from the classical world. How about the fabulously filthy Catullus? If you enjoy a good snigger, he's your man. Martial's wit survives well. Pliny the Younger is mostly a bit tiresomely jumped up and priggish for my taste (even Trajan gets a bit fed up with him, as Pliny faithfully records) but his letter describing the eruption of Vesuvius is jaw-dropping. Similarly with Josephus, who would happily have editwarred on Wikipedia, given his problems with POV, but whose description of the siege of Masada is extraordinary. I agree with you about Herodotus... I find him difficult to follow, so I'd suggest you avoid Tacitus who's (for my taste) even drier, despite the fact that the events he describes are so juicy, and Caesar who invented self-promotion. Anyway, enjoy! --Dweller (talk) 12:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for your input. Although I have read some of these suggestions, many of them do seem very interesting, and I look forward to trying them. Thanks, --Czmtzc (talk) 03:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The Prince by Macchiavelli is very readable and surprisingly still very up-to-date in many ways. Matt Deres (talk) 21:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Simpsons, deontology, and utilitarianism

Can someone point me to a specific Simpsons episode that demonstrates or draws out the tension between Kantian Deontological ethics and Utilitarianism? Thank you, Llamabr (talk) 18:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

just google 'it's the thought that counts' i'm sure they have a good retort somewhere —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.51.122.22 (talk) 18:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the input, but I'm afraid I don't understand your advice. I'm looking for a particular episode. Thanks, Llamabr (talk) 19:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

How about Blood Feud (The Simpsons)? Thylacoleo (talk) 00:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't really see it. Because Marge will want him to do it because of some duty, and Homer wants him to do it for the reward? I guess that's right. I was hoping for the dilemma to be more central to the story, though. Thanks for the suggestion. Llamabr (talk) 01:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

That's not a bad example, but I think a better illustration would be Lisa the Iconoclast, because its plot is essentially the story of Lisa's journey from Kantian to Utilitarian. When she discovers that town founder Jebediah Springfield is a fraud, her deontological commitment to truth impels her to attack the townspeople's treasured misconceptions. However, after seeing Springfield united by the celebration, she decides that even a lie can have beneficial effects: "Regardless of who said it, a noble spirit embiggens the smallest man." By the end of the episode, she has accepted the cromulence of Consequentialism. Lantzy ^talk 11:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. That's closer to what I was thinking. Can I get another example, though, before I decide? Cromulence. Llamabr (talk) 14:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Here are some more miscellaneous examples picked from my Simpsons-cluttered mind, but I still think the Jebediah episode is the best illustration. In The Boy Who Knew Too Much, Mayor Quimby's obnoxious nephew Freddie is on trial for beating up a waiter. Bart knows he is innocent, but hesitates to come forward because doing so will reveal that he was cutting class. As Lisa says, "because of you, a horrible yet innocent person is going to jail." Bart's decision to come forward is based on a deontological respect for the truth, not a desire to exonerate the horrible Freddie Quimby. Marge is extremely Kantian, especially in early episodes: in Bart Gets Hit by a Car, she is too honest to con an evil millionaire who ran over her son. It is interesting to note that of all the major characters, Homer is the only one who almost never acts out of a Kantian sense of duty. In A Star is Burns, Homer vs. Patty & Selma, The Cartridge Family, and many other episodes, his good deeds are simply attempts to earn Marge's approval. When Homer obeys a categorical imperative, it is usually bizarre, morally dubious, and used for comedic effect: in Bart Carny, he is inexplicably loyal to carnival folk, even after they have squatted in his house; in Homer's Phobia, he is homophobic; in Much Apu About Nothing, he is obsessed with illegal immigrants. Lantzy ^talk 19:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Napoleon and Germany

Would it be true to say that Napoleon was the single most important figure in the rise of modern Germany? Jill Hope (talk) 18:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Otto von Bismarck. User:Krator (t c) 19:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Jill, have a look at Napoleon and German Identity by Tim Blanning, published in History Today, April 1998. The short answer is, yes, Napoleon was in many ways a decisive influence in the formation of modern Germany, as decisive in some ways as Bismarck.

It is by no accident that the Thomas Nipperday, the German historian, begins his greatest work with the words "In the beginning was Napoleon." It was Napoleon, by his military victories, and his political realignments, who exorcised a Medieval ghost, giving Germany a new and modern shape in the Confederation of the Rhine, which survived his defeat, it might be said, in the enhanced form of the German Confederation. It was from this point forward that Europe was faced with the 'German question', to which Bismarck and Prussia finally provided an answer. The Holy Roman Empire had been, since the days of Louis XIV, one of the least effective barriers to French ambition. In consigning it to the grave Napoleon gave a kick start to German power, perhaps his most significant legacy to his own nation. Clio the Muse (talk) 03:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The French occupation of Germany furthered the raising of the German identity. Sparking the "Wars of Liberation" which later were a central German myth, similar to the Revolutionary War. For an idea take a look at this guy:Friedrich Ludwig Jahn--Tresckow (talk) 01:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

From Homer to Henry James - What's this narrative technique called?

In a wide range of literature, from Homer's Odyssey to the works of Hnery James and Joseph Conrad, authors employ a technique by which the narrative is enclosed within another narrative. Specifically, the story is told by a character in the story.

Is there a literary term for this technique? It's as old as rocks, but I can't find an accepted term. I've come accross 'oblique narrative technique', but this googles about six results. Anything more widely-used? Go on, make me happy! Joshua.c.j (talk) 19:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Frame narrative. David Šenek 19:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Frame story is OK. The article links to Story within a story. Think also of play within a play (especially in Hamlet); and my own favourite, nested narratives. This seems to be the most general term available.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 00:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

YAY! Thanks everyone! Joshua.c.j (talk) 11:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

How did Bridget Bishop come to be charged with witchcraft in Salem Village?

At her exam, Bridget claims that she has never been to Salem Village and doesn't know the people accusing her. If this is the case, how did her name come up as a suspect and why exactly was she charged? Were the girls claiming to be bewitched name her by name? How would that have been possible? --Courtdog (talk) 20:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Have you read Bridget Bishop? Corvus cornix_talk 21:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Read it? I recently did an update and corrected bad information. So do you care to help me find an answer?--Courtdog (talk) 00:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It says right there that she may have been charged on trumped up charges by her inlaws. Corvus cornix_talk 00:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

That deals with her first witchcraft trial where she was found not guilty. I'm asking about her second trial where she was convicted and executed. Bishop didn't live in Salem Village and didn't know the girls who made the initial complaints. Does anyone know how she came to the attention of the authorities the second time? Was she just arrested because of the prior charges and perhaps the girls just reacted from that?--Courtdog (talk) 00:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The basis of her arrest on April 18, 1692 seems to have been accusations by Mercy Lewis and Ann Putnam. The girls would have known about Bridget Bishop not only because of her former arrest for witchcraft, and the (if they had not ultimately been tragic), absurd rumors resulting therefrom; but also because her house on the Ipswich Road had become "a place of late-night conviviality where she sold cider manufactured from apples grown in her private orchard" - that is, an unlicensed tavern that was "a rendezvous for local youths". The Ipswich Road was used by residents of Salem Village to travel into Salem Town, so Bridget's establishment - and the rumors of her witchcraft - would have been known to the Villagers though Bridget herself never ventured into the Village proper. Many of the anti-Parris faction (those most likely to be accused of witchcraft) lived along the Ipswich road. 142 persons were named as witches in 1692; only about 25 lived in Salem Village or its environs. Witchcraft was an accusation chiefly hurled at outsiders. It was, in short, gossip that killed Bridget Bishop: that she dressed provocatively, in scarlet, that she played shovel board, that she publicly fought with her husband, that she corrupted the youth and seemed sexy to teenage boys; that she paid a man thruppence which vanished from his pocket, that she was standing in the road when a cart became stuck in the mud; that her spectre laid upon Richard Coman and John Louder in bed; that she visited the Shattucks when their eldest child was dying; rumors with basis and without, rumors which in the mouths of young girls empowered by those in authority became fatal weapons. - Nunh-huh 04:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

This answers the question, partly. Thanks. The girls might have known about the previous allegations (although I don't know how you can show that), but Bridget Bishop was not a tavern owner. It is a nice story, but it isn't true. She was likely confused with Sarah Bishop. --Courtdog (talk) 23:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

frankenstein

what qualities does the creature in frankenstein have that make him a monster?70.116.19.49 (talk) 22:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC) a few qualities would be helpful

None. He becomes monstrous in consequence of rejection, isolation and alienation, the very things that turn ordinary people into monsters. Hatred at his own existence turns to hatred against his creator, Victor Frankenstein, especially after he refuses to create a companion to end the creature's loneliness. Why not read the book and find out for yourself? Clio the Muse (talk) 00:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

True, but you could argue that his extreme physical repulsiveness is the cause of his isolation - not a quality of character, but rather a quality of appearance. Also, the creature might not have been telling the truth in its narration, and the doctor could have been right to refuse to build a companion... Random Nonsense (talk) 21:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Roman mystery

In my youth I had some psychic abilities. I lost them as I grew older. Since high school Latin, I had a great affinity for Rome. I was in my thirties when my dream was realized and I was in Rome. I made several trips to Rome thanks to a professor at New York University. It may have been on my fourth trip to Rome that I had a most unusual experience. I was sleeping in an albergo built over stage left of the Theatre of Pompey. I had a dream in which three women were gathered around me. Their heads were covered but not their faces. One was rubbing my forehead repeating (phonetically) ee-shakul-tay / ee-shakul-tay. I awoke my travelling companion who heard me repeating ee-shakul-tay / ee-shakul-tay. He is a professor of Latin and Greek and could make no sense of it. I am a gay man and in no way was eroticism involved, yet I felt I was in company of like persons. I have read that travellers sometimes have strange dreams due to stress. Can anyone make sense of the warning or command of the women?LShecut2nd (talk) 23:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Neither Latin nor Greek had any "sh" sound... AnonMoos (talk) 04:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

For that sense of lost psychic abilities, see Wordsworth's "Ode: Intimations of Immortality". --Wetman (talk) 07:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

For the phonetics and possible meaning, you could ask at the Language desk. Julia Rossi (talk) 08:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Please don't -- it's pretty certain that that particular pronunciation doesn't have any meaning in Greek or Latin. However, I suppose it could be a garbling of Exultate or Exaltate... AnonMoos (talk) 16:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I am no expert in Aramaic by any means, but I think in Aramaic, "Ee shakul tay" would mean "If you take it". Very hard to be sure, given written transliteration, especially when you bear in mind that I might pronounce that group of English letter differently to you. Take it to the Languages Desk - and wait for them to laugh at my ignorant suggestion ;-) NB You might encourage skeptics to answer you if you drop the whole dream/other life bit and just ask what the phrase might mean in any language. --Dweller (talk) 21:41, 11 February 2008(UTC)

NB Married Jewish women would have covered their heads in Roman times and in that period would probably have spoken Hebrew and/or Aramaic; there's some scholarly dispute about the transfer of the Jewish vernacular between the two languages, depending on period and location. --Dweller (talk) 21:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Just musing here, but there are the three Fates who are three women, unless yours were related to theatre; and Dweller's translation has echoes of St Augustine's message[4] from an unseen child to take and read... at a time of personal crisis. Interesting though. Julia Rossi (talk) 11:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to all. I know that there were many "foreign" religions in Rome during it's days of empire. There were many extraordinary events in the environs of theatres. There was even a temple to Venus attached to the Theatre of Pompey. The dream was more like a trance, for I was actually speaking the words the woman was saying and my travelling companion heard them. I still love Rome (though I could do without the thieves on the No. 64 bus!). My first arrival was on a late afternoon. I had spaghetti alla carbonara (al fresco) facing the Palazzo Farnese. It was one of the highlights of my life.LShecut2nd (talk) 16:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I highly recommend a copy of Rodolfo Lanciani's "Forma Urbis Romae" for anyone serious about walks in Rome.LShecut2nd (talk) 17:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

the spanish and dutch empires

one of spain's most effictive weapoins during its attacks in mexico was its —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.243.212.16 (talk) 23:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Germs. Corvus cornix_talk 23:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I see that you have asked this question and two other three similar questions over at Wikipedia:Help desk, in the form of three multiple choice questions. If this is some kind of school assignment, please do your own homework or read the articles we have on the subjects. Aecis^Brievenbus 23:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Our three most "effictive weapoins" are fear, surprise, ruthless efficiency, and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope -- wait, our four (oh never mind). AnonMoos (talk) 16:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Where does the Dutch Empire fit in here?! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The most effictive weapon would be the Aztec myth of a god returning from over the sea, which was manipulated to Spanish advantage. --Wetman (talk) 07:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The alliances with Aztec subject states were also pretty useful. --Carnildo (talk) 22:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

In case you were puzzled by AnonMoos' response, what he means is that the Aztecs didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition. --Dweller (talk) 12:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)