Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.
According to our article Arthur Wagner "Wagner had a lifelong opposition to the consecration of Anglican churches, on the basis that this would " an opening for the State to intervene in their affairs". This view was shared by many Tractarians. On one occasion he complained to Richard Durnford, Bishop of Chichester, that consecration was "a farce". Pusey supported Wagner in his attempts to leave his newly built churches unconsecrated, but to no avail". What opening to the State would consecration give, beyond that already provided by the established status of the Church? Are any CofE churches unconsecrated (as opposed to deconsecrated)? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 12:31, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
Courtesy links: Church of England Consecration Consecration in Christianity Edward Bouverie Pusey Richard Durnford Tractarians
I saw a similar argument about Keble College chapel. According to The Encyclopaedia of Oxford, in a characteristic attempt to keep the college out of the grasp of those whose views might be alien, the council refused to have the chapel consecrated, much to the fury of the then BISHOP OF OXFORD; it remains unconsecrated to this day.TSventon (talk) 13:12, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
@DuncanHill: The local bishop would have had more rights over a consecrated church than over an unconsecrated proprietary chapel. I haven't found any recent sources, but A Practical Treatise on the Law Relating to the Church and Clergy (Henry William Cripps, 1886) says as is said by Lord Coke , as the church is a place dedicated and consecrated to the service of God , and is common to all the inhabitants , it therefore belongs to the bishop to order it in such manner as the service of God may best be celebrated on page 400 and has a section on proprietary chapels on pages 153 and 154. TSventon (talk) 19:47, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
So in historical artifacts and buildings you see a deep interlinking of art and function, bridges, light poles and buildings are brimming with art. Why did we heavily reduce this? My guess is that business contributed to art as a pr move and with the advent of the printing press it stopped making economic sense. What do you think? Bastard Soap (talk) 13:25, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
In Britain, outdoor advertising was based on hoardings (billboards): England 1835, by John Orlando ParryBillboard#History has a reference for flyposting in the late 15th century, reasonably hot on the heels of moveable type. Beyond that, the lag in moving to full-blown advertising is mysterious, but advances in printing must be relevant. History_of_advertising#16th–19th_centuries says "Advances in printing allowed retailers and manufacturers to print handbills and trade cards. For example, Jonathon Holder, a London haberdasher in the 1670s, gave every customer a printed list of his stock with the prices affixed. At the time, Holder's innovation was seen as a 'dangerous practice' and an unnecessary expense for retailers." But further down the page there's this nice picture of public artwork from 1835. Giant version here, because I couldn't read it all properly in our version. Card Zero (talk)22:33, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
I don't think that PR is an adequate explanation. Consider Crossness Pumping Station (built 1859-1865) by local government in London. It wasn't a private business trying to drum up income, because it had a monopoly on everybody's sewage, and it didn't need PR because London was desperate to get rid of the stuff. It wasn't even a public building (in the sense that members of the public needed to visit it). Yet it was decorated on the outside, and crazy decorated inside.
I suggest that such decoration takes many skilled person-hours, and that as labour became more expensive, the cost of decoration became prohibitive. -- Verbarson edits10:42, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
This article, Ornament and Decoration, says that the Modernist movement of the first years of the 20th-century rejected ornamentation in architecture and other fields, taking the example of Viennese architect Adolf Loos and his 1908 essay, Ornament and Crime:
Adolf Loos campaigned to strip the ornament from language, from dress, and from dwelling. “I have freed mankind from superfluous ornament,” he bragged. “‘Ornament’ was once the synonym for ‘beauty’. Today, thanks to my life’s work, it is a synonym for ‘inferior’.” Espousing a middle-class ethos of functionalism, economic rationality, impersonality, and restraint, modernists redirected investment from luxury expenditures to factories, sanitary facilities, and municipal infrastructures. In place of individual expression they advocated standardized solutions, naked structures, white walls, and crisp geometric forms.
I wondered what the "crime" was. His article says:
"the evolution of culture is synonymous with the removal of ornamentation from objects of everyday use." It was therefore a crime to force craftsmen or builders to waste their time on ornamentation that served to hasten the time when an object would become obsolete (design theory). Loos's stripped-down buildings influenced the minimal massing of modern architecture, and stirred controversy.
I have some questions about this.
Does therefore really belong? It would make sense in the opposite direction, rational efficient building is removing ornament -> evolution of culture is removing ornament, but doesn't seem to follow the other way round, as presented.
I question his premises. If ornamentation really causes obsolescence (by adversely affecting the function of an object) it must therefore be more than mere decoration (which by definition is not functional). The only way I can understand ornamentation causing 'obsolescence' is by going out of fashion. The decoration of Tower Bridge is well out of fashion, but that does not make the bridge obsolete.
I couldn't guess with certainty, since Brutalism has its fans and protectors due to its historical interest (reminiscent of the scene in Futurama where there is a concert of classical hip-hop, and how "modern art" is now over 100 years old). Besides, out-of-date ornament may have caused buildings to look offensive in the past, before the notion of "heritage". Certainly in Georgian England there was great destruction of Tudor architecture because everything had to be "improved", meaning neoclassical or approximately Parisian. Card Zero (talk)16:04, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
I'm looking for a picture of this person. You'd think someone with a school and a prize named after them shouldn't be that difficult, but I'm having no luck. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:45, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
I read a story online in which a Greek woman in the 1950s was almost tricked to being trafficked to a harem in the Arabian Peninsula, after answering an job advertisement in a newspaper. I remember hearding similar stories when I read about white slavery.
Certain athentic cases of European women dissapearing in the Muslim world, such as Gunnel Gummeson, have been speculated to be victims of such kidnappings.
I wonder: are there actual historic cases when European women where known to be kidnapped to harems in that time period? And how probable was it?
Some people have called sutch stories propaganda. But it is factual that Africa women where kidnapped to become slave concubines in harems in the Gulf in that time period (slavery in Saudi Arabia was still legal). So if African women where subjected to this fate, why not European woman? Are there known cases? Thank you --Aciram (talk) 00:01, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
"The Trafficking in Persons Report of 2007 from the US Department of State says that sexual slavery exists in the Persian Gulf, where women and children may be trafficked from the post-Soviet states, Eastern Europe, Far East, Africa, South Asia or other parts Middle East."
Yes, I realise it is logical and reasonable to assume that there where such cases. Chattel slavery was indeed both legal and in full practice in most Gulf states in the 1950s.
But I am interested in the particular time period of the decades around the 1950s: before the fall of the Societ Union, when modern sex trafficking from Eastern Europe became rampant. Where there such cases in the Interwar period, and the 1950s? It is that particular time period I am interested in. --Aciram (talk) 21:53, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
There is every reason to think that Ottoman Empire slavery ended when the Ottoman Empire ended. And in the cited modern source (it's misleadingly 3 citations to the same state department report), simply listing countries means nothing -- working through them, you'll see most countries are tier 2 and below, and it seems all will be listed as 2 or more of source, transit, and destination for trafficking. I'm not disputing the problem of trafficking -- I'm asserting that your statements are unsupported.
I don't understand what you mean when you say "There is every reason to think that Ottoman Empire slavery ended when the Ottoman Empire ended", since legal chattel slavery in Saudi Arabia and Yemen ended in 1962, slavery in Kuwait in 1949, slavery in Dubai in 1963, and slavery in Oman in 1970 - and it is well documented that all of these countries certainly still had chattel slaves until the very year of legal emancipation (I have studied that issue).
However, my specific question is: are there known cases when European women where abducted to be used for sexual slavery (slave concubinage being legal) in harems on the Arabian Peninsula in the 1950s? This was a particular time period: prior to the fall of the Soviet East Communist Block, when sex trafficking became rampant. --Aciram (talk) 21:53, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
I assume the point is that slaves in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Kuwait, Dubai and Oman were not slaves in the Ottoman Empire after it ended since even if they were part of the Ottoman Empire before, they no longer were. Even slaves in Turkey would not be slaves in the Ottoman Empire. More generally, the slave trade would likely have been significantly affected by the fall of the empire. New routes would likely need to have been developed, and sources may not have been so willing to provide slaves to lesser powers. (Remember this was before any of them became rich and powerful via oil money, I mean a number of them weren't even the modern day states that they are now at the time.) Also the end of the Ottoman Empire didn't happen in a vacuum, WW1 and other related events would likely have significantly affected the trade even of the empire had survived. So while clearly slavery didn't end, it's likely it was quite different from what it was before. Nil Einne (talk) 16:11, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
I have studied the issue, and the slave trade and use of slaves where not much affected in the Arabian Peninsula by the fall of the Ottoman Empire. Regardless, that is irrelevant to the question of the post: is it confirmed that European women where trafficked to the harems in the Arabian Peninsula in the 1950s or around that time? --Aciram (talk) 16:57, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
First theatres in England
Hello.
fr.wikipedia says on that "Le 29 juin 1572, une première ordonnance du Parlement, l'Act for the Punishment of Vagabonds, impose que chaque troupe de comédiens soit sous le patronage d'un noble ou de deux édiles" but en.wikipedia write on that "the Mayor and Corporation of London first banned plays in 1572 as a measure against the plague".
These two statements are said to be the origin of the birth of theatres in London.
Can you tell me which one is correct or give me more information? Already thanks, Égoïté (talk) 19:01, 29 September 2024 (UTC) - sorry for my bad english !
Probably both are correct.
The Act of Parliament would have applied throughout England and Wales, and governed existing (and future) acting companies, which might have travelled around the country performing in public, and/or performed at private houses of rich patrons, or had a fixed venue (see for example Red Lion (theatre)).
The ban on performances by the authorities in London (followed by their expulsion of 'players' entirely in 1575 – see also The Theatre#History) applied to the City of Londononly, which occupied (as it still does) an area of about one square mile or so on the north bank of the Thames. These measures prompted theatre companies to move to, and build theatres in, the district of Southwark on the south bank of the Thames (across London Bridge) where the City of London had no authority. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.86.81 (talk) 19:34, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
Now you have me curious what an edile/aedile was in London in that era. Our article (and basically everything turned up in a cursory web search) seems to be focused on the Roman office. The only mention relating to late 16thC England is about a mention of the office in a Shakespeare play. -- Avocado (talk) 23:08, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
I was trying to remember the name of that Dalit/lower caste Hindu rape victim who was from a movie (not in English). She became a MP and was assassinated over legal case. What was her name? Maybe she was Buddhist since she was from near Nepal. Sportsnut24 (talk) 00:59, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
I don't know. The article has various hints, such as "the US is negotiating with Lebanon’s government - rather than Hezbollah." I gather you're interested in the "Official responses are expected within hours" part? Card Zero (talk)14:14, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
this is kind of a weird one, but during the WWII Battle of the Atlantic, are there any known instances of navy sailors collecting and eating some or all of the fish that were killed by depth charges they dropped?
Members of the crew of HMAS Doomba with fish taken on board killed or stunned after a depth charge attack. HMAS Doomba in her role as escort and anti-submarine vessel would sweep the harbour approaches with her ASDIC before escorting a convoy to sea and attack any threatening ASDIC returns with depth charges.
Note that once at sea with a convoy, stopping for any reason would leave an escort vessel vulnerable to attack and the convoy's merchant ships unescorted. From 1941, there were convoy rescue ships which saved escorts from having to stop to pick up survivors, so I imagine that stopping to catch stunned fish would be highly unlikely. Alansplodge (talk) 13:33, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
The search term "Кондак усопших" does not turn up any results from the Russian Misplaced Pages. The kontakion is mentioned in this Russian news article on the funeral service for Prince Philip, which also provides an answer to the "why" question — allegedly because Philip wanted to emphasize his kinship with the Romanovs. The Russian term for Parents’ Sabbath is Родительская суббота, which is more adequately translated as "Parental Saturday", of which there are several in any given year. The Russian Misplaced Pages has an article on Parental Saturdays, which is skimpy on the liturgy and does not mention any songs. --Lambiam06:05, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
Okay, many thanks for your work. I'll put in a link to that article. The Kontakion of the Departed has a long history in British royal funerals, and I suspect it might have been used even if Philip hadn't had Orthodox roots (his mother, Princess Alice of Battenberg, was an Orthodox nun; I think the Romanov link is rather tenuous but useful to Russian nationalists). Alansplodge (talk) 13:17, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
I don't know the answer, but the two statements are not at odds with each other. Theoretically (given just these two statements), the penalty for an attempt to strangle a person could have been a slap on the wrist, provided that the clothing of the victim was not defaced. --Lambiam06:14, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
At this time, there was a sharp distinction between felonies and misdemeanors. The former category consisted of “serious” crimes punishable by death or transportation; the latter were relatively milder offenses punishable by prison, the pillory, or a public flogging. Grand larceny, for example, was a felony; minor larceny a misdemeanor. More than two hundred crimes were punishable by death, but the felons often received a pardon. Murderers were of course hanged, as were hardened thieves, highwaymen, and street robbers; other felons were most often transported to a prison colony abroad. Common assault, even with intent to maim or kill, was a misdemeanor, and Williams and his friends had hoped that the Monster’s crimes would be categorized as such.
But, on the other hand the authorities were hard pressed to find a legal statute that made the Monster’s crime a felony, since they feared a public outrage in London if he was charged with a mere misdemeanor...
But the magistrates and judges had discovered an obscure statute from 1721. It had been intended to repress the activities of certain weavers who objected to the importation of Indian fashions that were purchased by the public in preference to the weavers’ own goods. The weavers actually poured aquafortis on the clothes of people wearing these foreign fashions. To stop these outrages, it was made a felony, punishable by transportation for seven years, to "assault any person in the public streets, with intent to tear, spoil, cut, burn, or deface, the garments or cloaths of such person, provided the act be done in pursuance of such intention."
— Bondeson, Jan (2001). The London Monster. University of Pennsylvania Press. p. 85.
Philip II of Spain and his 1565 decision on theatre
The reputation of Philip II of Spain, an actor of the counter-reformation, for rigor in religious, political and social matters leads me to ask this question: Could you give me the reason why Philip II of Spain decided to authorize in 1565 the creation of permanent brotherhoods with buildings for the representation of comedies?
This information appears in various places including this one
I am looking for reliable sources. Thank you already for your answer. Égoïté (talk) 08:44, 2 October 2024 (UTC) (sorry for my bad english)
Don't have an answer, but there seems to be some academic literature on the topic. You might find something in: Suárez García, José Luis. “La licitud del teatro en el reinado de Felipe II. Textos y pretextos”, XXI Jornadas de Teatro Clásico. Almagro, 1998, pp. 219-251. Fut.Perf.☼10:55, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Égoïté, you may be interested in PHILIP II AND THE ORIGINS OF BAROQUE THEATRE which describes how religious brotherhoods or cofradías de socorro petitioned the king for licences for theatrical performances to increase their income, as charitable donations alone could not fulfil the demand for the hospitals, orphanages and homeless hostels that the brotherhoods provided (p. 20 onwards). Alansplodge (talk) 17:28, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Why were (and still are?) ambulance and rescue ships in WW2 not given Geneva Convention protections? It seems such protections were not even sought. I'm using WW2 Hospital Ships, US Medical Research Centre as a source on ambulance ships being armed, and in part yesterday's reply on a previous thread here by User:Alansplodge, to get me curious that convoy rescue ships were also armed (which seems triply odd to me given their reported war stats).
Our only relevant article to ambulance ships (not hospital ships) seems to be Ambulance § Military use, which does not cover the issue. The armed unmarked ambulance use cases are for modern urban warfare, and ships seem antithetical to that, particularly as hospital ships and coastal rescue are protected classes that exist at the same time and place as ambulance ships. SamuelRiv (talk) 18:10, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
"Introduction (2017 Commentary)". International Humanitarian Law Databases. Convention (II) for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea. Geneva, 12 August 1949. International Committee of the Red Cross. Commentary of 2017. paragraphs 83-91 might be a good starting point, but don't have time to look further right now. fiveby(zero) 19:56, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, but as a starting point it just raises the same "why not" question. It indicates the last maritime IHL treaty in force for the major powers of WW2 was Hague Convention X 1907, which states plainly in Article 1 that a "military hospital ship" is any ship assigned "specially and solely with a view to assisting the wounded, sick and shipwrecked". (Article 16 further seems to indicate that rescue should be accommodated regardless of ship.) So the specialized rescue and ambulance ships can be protected as such, and the USMRC article indicates that marked hospital ships were honored by U-boats, so I'm again asking why they didn't even try to mark rescue and ambulance ships? SamuelRiv (talk) 22:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I don't know the answer, but my suspicion is that it's connected with the British policy of shooting down German rescue flying-boats during the Battle of Britain (described at Seenotdienst#World War II), and that consequently the Germans were highly unlikely to respect any claimed immunity from attack and so the ships might as well be defensively armed. Alansplodge (talk) 22:05, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Another thought (after re-reading our article) is that there is a requirement in the Hague Convention for a belligerent to advise the location of any hospital ship. As a convoy's route and location was a secret on which the survival of the convoy depended, giving away that information to the enemy would be undesirable, to say the least. Alansplodge (talk) 22:28, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
I had pulled up the Hague X text and I don't see where it says anything resembling a rule like "Belligerents will establish the location of a hospital ship". It says that the ships' names must be shared. (The seenotdienst article is interesting, as it indicates that sea rescue of pilots at least was not a high priority for the Brits for quite a while, but ship rescue would still be quite different.) SamuelRiv (talk) 22:52, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
So not why were rescue ships not afforded protections under the conventions, but why were rescue ships not designated Hospital Ships under the existing conventions?On "Ambulance Ship" this might just be the usage of the term. There was a need for ships that carried out the same functions of caring for wounded and transporting from the theater of operations to interior zones but were armed and could perform other duties. As the reference you were using pointed out there were no US hospital ships mid-1942. There was at least initially debate on the issues and inter-service rivalry. The army wanted Hospital Ships but in the Pacific the navy was unsure if the Japanese would respect the convention and they wanted ships which could operate tactically with the fleet and were armed for protection. Also remember that there was a critical shortage of Allied shipping, if you designate a hull as a Hospital Ship it cannot perform other functions. Can't find a definitive source here but will keep looking.For the convoy rescue ships i'll try and get access to Schofield and Hague but one thing that is probably missing from the article is Doenitz' order to specifically target them
To each convoy a so-called rescue ship is generally attached, a special vessel up to 3,000 tons which is designed to take aboard the shipwrecked after U-boat attacks. These ships are in most cases equipped with catapult planes and large motor boats. …They are heavily armed with depth charge throwers and very maneuverable, and are often taken for U-boat traps by commanders. In view of the fact that the annihilation of ships and crews is desired, their sinking is of great importance.
It might be that a calculation was made that a small ship operating at the rear of the convoy was much too valuable for defense of the convoy to designate as a Hospital Ship. Would the Germans believe that such a vessel might not for instance radio other ships if they spotted a submarine, try and salvage ships, or assist the convoy in some other way? If the allies had some ships that were operating as Hospital Ships that the Germans might not consider completely legitimate would it endanger all Hospital Ships or give ammunition for them to claim that the allies were not respecting the conventions? Sorry about the reference free answer, but will look for more later. fiveby(zero) 16:57, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, British rescue ships were (despite what Doenitz believed) only fitted with light guns, the same as any other defensively equipped merchant ship.
One Geneva Convention requirement which might be relevant here is the last clause of Article 5:
The ships and boats above mentioned which wish to ensure by night the freedom from interference to which they are entitled, must, subject to the assent of the belligerent they are accompanying, take the necessary measures to render their special painting sufficiently plain.
In other words, designated hospital ships needed to be illuminated at night. As the great majority of U-boat attacks took place after dark, this would be problematic, as it would give away the position of the whole convoy.
I don't interpret that as that they need to be illuminated at night. Just that if they don't want to be protected at night, they need to be sufficiently visible. It seems to imply that you can be fine as a named hospital ship that is visible and protected by day, and less-visible and unprotected by night. It also is explicit that if you are in a convoy ("the belligerent they are accompanying"), and the convoy tells you to be invisible at night, you need to be invisible, and that will not jeopardize your protection during the daytime either. SamuelRiv (talk) 14:02, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
So there was not much point in seeking protection that would only apply in daylight, because the risk of attack was at night. Alansplodge (talk) 19:31, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
At first sight, it may seem strange that, confronted with the need to inaugurate a Rescue Service for the victims of the German submarine offensive against merchant shipping, the Admiralty did not fit out a number of hospital ships to cruise in the areas where the Uboats were active, ready to pick up survivors. In theory, provided they carried the markings and behaved as required by the Hague Convention of 1907, they should have been perfectly safe, and this would have been an admirable solution to the problem. Larger ships could have been used. These would not have suffered in the same way as the Rescue Ships from the savage buffeting of the elements, and possibly their facilities would have been better. There were, however, several reasons why hospital ships were not used.
In the First World War, Germany had refused to grant immunity from attack to hospital ships in the English Channel, parts of the North Sea and in the Mediterranean, even if their identify had been notified. Similarly, during the Second World War, from the outbreak of hostilities, it was known that Germany, under Hitler’s dictatorship, took little stock of international agreements unless it was to their advantage, illustrated by the occasions when Germany, and later Italy, disregarded the provisions of the Hague Convention: by the middle of 1941 no fewer than 13 hospital ships and carriers had been sunk, although all had been clearly marked as such.
The nine hospital ships were...
The British Government therefore had every reason to distrust the use of hospital ships in dealing with casualties on the high seas. In any case, under the regulations a hospital ship had to be lighted up at night. This meant that she could not keep close touch with a convoy without giving away its position to any U-boats which might be lying in wait. Yet, as we have seen, the speed with which a rescue could be effected was more often than not a matter of life or death. So if the rescuing ship was not in company with the victim of the attack, her usefulness would have been reduced.
Thus the arguments against fitting out and employing hospital ships for use with the convoys were decisive and their use was never given serious consideration. There was, however, a suggestion that fitting the Rescue Ships with HF/DF equipment with which to locate U-boats was perhaps somewhat unethical, having regard to the main purpose for which Rescue Ships were needed. But the ships neither claimed nor received any immunity from attack, so the Admiralty felt perfectly justified in using them for any purpose they had in mind, provided it did not interfere with their primary task of rescuing the survivors of torpedoed vessels. Rescue Ships became, in fact, part and parcel of the anti-submarine effort required to ensure the safety of that merchant shipping so vital to the prosecution of the war, and they accepted – like any other ship of a convoy and its escort – the risk of being sunk.
— Schofield, B.B. (2024) . The Rescue Ships and the Convoys.
for the Admiralty opinion, or at least Vice-admiral Schofield's. If you are thinking of article content here a warning that Schofield is a pretty scattered account, reads more like a first draft than a careful work. The confusing "nine hospital ships" paragraph i elided was however due to a later editors amendment in my edition. fiveby(zero) 16:09, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
Given that Prince Arthur was only 15 at the time of his death, it is not inconceivable that he and Catherine never had sex. That was certainly the argument that Henry put forward in order to marry her.
It's probably something that will never be answered.
David Starky in his book, Six Wives: The Queens of Henry VIII, argues that Catherine had been brought up to know the politics involved and what was needed to achieve her goals.
Allison Weir in her book, The Six Wives of Henry VIII was of the opinion that Catherine was a pious woman who wouldn't have entertained lying about this, and certainly wouldn't have gone to her death bed maintaining that lie.
Athur, Prince of Wales was said to have reported the morning after 'it was thirsty work' (I don't have the exact quote to hand), whereas Catherines maids reported sexual intercourse didn't happen.
@Alansplodge: Not usually, at least not at that period in time. They were 'put to bed' by a contingent of courtiers/religious figures/relatives and left to it.
Sometimes there were people that 'hung around' to ensure things 'were underway'. (I've no idea why I'm reverting to Euphemisms). Knitsey (talk) 10:56, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
(from the source's sources) If Steiner and Nims 2017 (free academia.edu account required) doesn't have what you're looking for, OCLC1025256342 might be the other option (it only turned up in academic libraries for my location, but you can often just uh walk in there if you have a backpack). I looked into some of the older sources the source cites: Steiner 1983 doesn't have it; doi:10.1086/370721might, but University of Chicago does not grant TWL access to that eighty-year-old paper, as if anyone who had anything to do with the research or original publication were still alive to profit from it. Got no results from either the British Museum or the JP Morgan Museum, each of which were said by one source or another to house the physical document. Folly Mox (talk) 20:30, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
Steiner does say there are likely careless errors in the first column, the transliterated Demotic. I hope his three-column attempt isn't the last. I just downloaded Van der Toorn's "Becoming Diaspora Jews" and the fact there's only a translation there seems wrong somehow, either cocky or the opposite. Like why go to all the trouble of doing all the steps yourself then fail to show your work? Steiner's is invaluable, but fallible. He's got a very "trust me" tone, but makes some far-flung extractions over simpler solutions. Anyways, I'll be poring over it for some time, and I really appreciate you going to the effort to help me. The two latter options weren't available to me.
Temerarius, it turns out I'm dumb and missed the obvious step of checking whether Bowman's 1944 publication was shared with Jstor by University of Chicago Press. Of course it had been, and JSTOR542994 does reproduce portions of the text in a script similar to the one used by the source you originally posted here. TWL does grant access to the paper via Jstor.As to Karel van der Toorn's 2018 book length treatment published by Ugarit-Verlag, that seems like it would be a great source to use for the article, but yeah Worldcat showed availability only in libraries at least 1300km away from me, and the two online booksellers I saw have it in stock were asking nearly $200 for a copy. The publisher's website was also malconfigured and wouldn't serve me the page about the book.I suppose as a last ditch effort, you might be able to email contact van der Toorn, explaining that you're an independent scholar working on the Misplaced Pages article about the subject of their recent book, but aren't able to access it to use it as a source. They may be willing to share sections of their author's proof with you (most academics are significantly more interested in sharing their research than in their publisher profiting from it). (I have contacted individual academics with research questions before, although not since grad school. Most are pretty busy.)That said, van der Toorn's own doi:10.1515/zaw-2016-0037 (2017, De Gruyter; TWL yes) states that their own work on papyrus Amherst 63 is based on the Chicago photographs of 1901, so obviously direct inspection of this historical document has been difficult for everyone. Folly Mox (talk) 12:46, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Maybe I will email the professor! Thanks.
Is there a way to download the high resolution at the Morgan library's site? Other than pixel-perfect is asking for a headache. I'd screenshot and stitch but there's no view at 100% button. https://www.themorgan.org/manuscript/318272
This link resolves the 3.2MP version. Unsure if they have a higher resolution somewhere; you might be able to use photo manipulation to help the glyphs stand out better from the papyrus ground. Folly Mox (talk) 16:15, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Click 'zoom' and it goes bigger with no jpg download. But it looks like it does go to 100% and max out there, after all, so I can pan and stitch. Worth the effort.
Re: U Chicago Press, God, it seems my Misplaced Pages library account was--it says permission denied, I'm not allowed to do that, did not receive a valid oauth response. I used to have access.
I'm able to access University of Chicago Press via TWL, but they're pretty selective about which publications our institutional subscription can access. From a pretty vague test search, it seems like around ⅓ of their content is still locked for us. Folly Mox (talk) 17:47, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Richard C. Steiner's writings are downloadable from https://repository.yu.edu/ , but I'm not sure if there's an overall listing page. I actually have a PDF of Steiner and Nims 1983 on my hard drive, but I didn't make the connection with the alphanumeric reference "pAmherst 63" until Steiner's name was mentioned... AnonMoos (talk) 17:15, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Wow, he wrote a lot of papers. Thanks for linking, there's some stuff you won't find anywhere.
Hi. Anyone knows where online it would be possible to find some good maps of Manipur from 1950s or 1960s, in which administrative division borders like tehsils, circles, subdivisions, panas could be found? My google search didn't come up with anything good so far. -- Soman (talk) 17:17, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
I've spent some time looking, and have also come up empty. The National Archives of India at abhilekh-patal.in only seem to have digitised cartographic material through the late 1800s. Archive.org hosts An Historical Atlas of the Indian Subcontinent, but this was published 1949. The National Atlas of India (1959, ed. S.P. Chatterjee) seems like a promising source, but I haven't found it digitised anywhere. The National Atlas has many further editions and supplementa, none of which appear to be available online. I haven't done a thorough TWL search, but maybe that's the next step. Folly Mox (talk) 18:12, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
I'm sure you're already aware of this, but just to cover all the bases: the intermediate step of course is the comic book Tales from the Crypt #28 from Feb/Mar 1952, which is where the movie got its direct inspiration from. EC is, in my experience, more studied than Amicus, which is now mostly forgotten (I'm a fan, but they and Tigon tend to get overshadowed or lumped-in with their more famous contemporary, Hammer). So, my suggestion is to establish that connection (Bierce => EC). The original credits unfortunately do not help. It's user-edited like WP, so the Grand Comics Database won't qualify as a WP:RS anyway, but their write up here claims Gaines and Feldstein as co-plotters and Feldstein as the writer of the script. So, not a great start, but it still seems the likeliest connection. What I'd suggest is getting a hold of something like Von Bernewitz, Fred; Geissman, Grant (2000). Tales of Terror: The EC Companion or one of the other sources listed at the bottom of EC Comics and see if you can find something there.
I'm not familiar with the Bierce work, so I can't comment directly, but EC (and their later brethren Creepy, Eerie, etc.) were usually (but not always) pretty good about acknowledging sources, so it's a little unusual that they didn't do that here. Any chance it's a coincidence? Matt Deres (talk) 02:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
@Matt Deres: Many thanks - the von Bernewitz & Geissman book is available at Archive.org, and on page 118 says Bargain in Death! is inspired by "One Summer Night" by Ambrose Bierce. You can read the Bierce story here. DuncanHill (talk) 10:59, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
@Deor: Thank you for the recommendation - I'm actually working my way through numerous horror/mystery/ghost/weird short-story anthologies I have accumulated over the years. I see that "The Death of Halpin Frayser" is in Blair, David (2002). Gothic Short Stories. Wordsworth Classics. Wordsworth Editions. ISBN1-84022-425-8., which is next-but-one (or two, if the latest from the British Library "Tales of the Weird" series turns up before I get to it) on my reading list. I won't read the Misplaced Pages article until I read the story. DuncanHill (talk) 18:12, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Public knowledge of the FFF system in the 60s
This needs a little explanation before the actual question, which is a mix of history and science - bear with me.
The FFF system (furlong-firkin-fortnight) is a humourous set of measurement units, mostly used for jokes about obscure measurement systems. I'm not sure when it was first proposed, since the article about it is lacking in historical detail.
In the book The Prospect of Immortality by Robert Ettinger, he states that "electrical signals travel essentially with the speed of light, namely about 1,560,000,000,000,000 furlongs per fortnight". There is no indication of this being a joke, and the source given for this paragraph gives the speed of light in the more typical metres per second, not furlongs per fortnight. The book is aimed towards the average layman of the 1960s (specifically "it is meant to be understandable to anyone who gets his money's worth out of a newspaper", from the foreword) and does have some humourous aspects to its writing, but it's strange to me that this measurement is used with zero explanation and zero indication that it's meant to be a joke and not a genuine way of measuring speed - Ettinger doesn't even give the speed in more usual terms afterwards.
So, my question is: would the average person of the 1960s (or even an academic of the 1960s) know about the FFF system enough to know that it's a joke? And would an average person roughly know the speed of light in the 1960s without having to research it, meaning Ettinger wouldn't have to give the speed in the usual units?
I've never heard of FFF, but it's patently obvious to me that "furlongs per fortnight" is a joke (I went to school in London the 1960s when furlongs were not obscure, if that's pertinent). Alansplodge (talk) 21:43, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
One question is whether the figure given for "furlongs per fortnight" is reasonably accurate. In school we learned that the speed of light was about 186,000 miles per second. A furlong is an eighth of a mile, so that would be 1,488,000 furlongs per second. There are 60 x 60 x 24 = 86,400 seconds per day. A fortnight is 14 days, which would be 1,209,600 seconds. So the figure could be 1,488,000 x 1,209,600 = 1,799,884,800,000,000. That's considerably more than 1,560,000,000,000,000, though it's in the general neighborhood. Or is my calculation incorrect? ←Baseball Bugscarrots→ 22:44, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure I first heard of furlongs/fortnight in an undergraduate physics class ca. 1980. It's the kind of geeky humor which would probably have been confined to certain groups then -- though later on in the Internet era some such things have achieved wider publicity ("Pi Day" as March 14th, "unobtainium" given prominence by the Avatar movie, and so on)... AnonMoos (talk) 19:52, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
2) Date and year of execution, RS sources I came across seem to give 1494 (possibly December 24) as date of execution where as tr:Molla Lutfî seem to give January 23, 1495 as date of death please help confirm which is more likely to be correct one?
4) The Reference number 9 in "Crafting History: Essays on the Ottoman World and Beyond in Honor of Cemal Kafadar. Germany, Academic Studies Press, 2023." refers to a letter compiled in Tokapi Palace Museum archive E 8101/1 which had complained that Lutfi to have had stolen nefis books from collection of late Sinan Pasha, who was mentor to Lutfi. A corroborating ref is preferred saying wording used in the letter meant 'stolen' since late Sinan Pasha was a close mentor of Lutfi.
5) Last but not least, I would also request list of Molla Lufti's books with Arabic and roman script nomenclatures and translations of the names, if possible.
Bookku, the difference between 24 December 1494 and 23 January 1495 is too great for solely Julian–Gregorian conversion to account for, but that may be part of the discrepancy. I've noticed that English language sources seem to prefer Julian where other languages tend to prefer Proleptic Gregorian. If you determine this is part of the problem, you may wish to include the other calendar's date in a footnote like we did at Zhu Yuanzhang to prevent people from changing it to be "consistent" with their own language sources. Folly Mox (talk) 18:02, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Why would any reference use Proleptic Gregorian? That's saying, "this is the date it would have been if Pope Gregory had decreed the new calendar earlier than he actually did - except he didn't". There's obviously a case for converting Julian dates to Gregorian in cases where the country concerned had not yet adopted the Gregorian calendar; that can apply from 1582 onwards. But going backwards from 1582 makes no sense; the new calendar was not retrospective, and Julian dates right up to Wednesday 4 October 1582 are correct and should not be converted. That that date was immediately followed by Thursday 15 October 1582 as the first day of the new Gregorian calendar was just a result of correcting the discrepancies that had built up over 15 centuries. There was always meant to be a disconnection, the famous 10-day gap (which increased every century the longer it took for countries to convert). -- Jack of Oz19:36, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Cultures that did not start out with the Julian calendar (Chinese calendar, Islamic calendar, e.g.) have a choice to make when converting pre-Gregorian dates to use a Western calendar, and many sources make the reasonable choice of using Proleptic Gregorian for consistency and ease of calculation rather than having to remember and account for the 1582 reform. Folly Mox (talk) 11:44, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
(ec) In the 15th-century sources, which are written in Ottoman Turkish, all dates are given in the Islamic calendar. I suppose that present-day scholars, translating such dates to a form accessible to their readership, see no reason to use another calendar that was current in the 15th century but is antiquated now. --Lambiam11:47, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
I get what you are both saying. I suppose it makes a kind of sense if those sources are considered in isolation. But the moment you introduce events in other countries around the same times, and those countries were using the Julian calendar, hey presto! there's an instant mismatch between the dates, making it seem as if one event preceded the other by up to 10 days in real time when in fact they were coincident. That seems less than useful as an aid to scholarship. Also, the conversion they use seems to be based on the view that Julian dates up to 4 October 1582 were somehow "inaccurate" and need to be corrected. That's just not so. Yes, the calendar itself got out of synch over a period of centuries, which is why Gregory decreed a new one - but the labels that were actually given to days before then (i.e. the dates) were the ones that the entire Western world used, the only official and correct ones (which were NOT retrospectively adjusted by Gregory's reform), and to fiddle with them from the lofty perspective of 20th-21st century scholarship seems somewhat wrong-headed, imo. It may sometimes be helpful to make it clear that, e.g. 15 July 1374 was a date in the Julian calendar. That's the solution, if one were required. But to convert that to 25 July in the Proleptic Gregorian is a step too far, and in the wrong direction. -- Jack of Oz21:36, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Bookku, according to Lutfi (court official), letter was "written in the middle of the month of Cemazi the Second in the year three and seventy and nine hundred²" which roughly translates to August 1565-6. (Where ² is a malformed citing "Casale pg 70", and Casale authored two works cited...) Anyway this seems to exclude identity between the two subjects (they also have different Wikidata QIDs, although no overlapping authority control IDs to help verify). Folly Mox (talk) 11:55, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
(ec) The article on the scholar on the Turkish Misplaced Pages identifies the place of execution unambiguously as the Hippodrome of Constantinople. I don't think the Covered Hippodrome was then still extant. --Lambiam12:08, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Gregorian calendar date January 23, 1495 corresponds to Julian calendar date January 14, 1495 or 1494. The uncertainty in the year is due to the fact that the new year did not everywhere start on January 1st; see Julian calendar § New Year's Day. In England, March 24, 1494 was followed by March 25, 1495. Both dates fall in April 1495 with Gregorian reckoning. --Lambiam05:20, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
What's confusing is the use of the proleptic Gregorian calendar. If sources actually employ this, they're doing a disservice to their readers, imo. -- Jack of Oz18:18, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
October 9
Difference between marriage in the USA and “elsewhere”?
Hello from France to the Reference Desk Users. My « strange » question comes from the end of Andrea Dworkin's strange quote in a book about “The Economics of Sex” (I can't find the exact title): “A man wants what a woman has - her sex. He can steal it (rape), convince her to give it to him (seduction), rent it (prostitution), lease it long-term (marriage in the US), or acquire it outright (marriage in most countries of the world).” I read that quotation in Steven Pinker's The Better Angels of Our Nature (a translated book to French).
My question concerns the words in bold.
I'll take the risk of trying to answer my question: Could this be an allusion to the fact that, statistically, marriages end much (?) more often in the USA than elsewhere in divorce, followed by marriages, then divorce, then marriages, sometimes with the same person (rare in France, I think?). Thank you for your matrimonial cogitations. Jojodesbatignoles (talk) 12:04, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Andrea was kind of "damaged", and it's hard to tell what she thought she was getting at. But if you google "divorce rate in france vs us", for example, you'll find they are comparable. A century ago and more, divorces were much harder to get in America, and probably elsewhere as well. You couldn't just say "we want a divorce". You had to show "cause", which led to bitterly contested trials. (That still happens sometimes.) ←Baseball Bugscarrots→ 13:03, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
However, since colonial times, divorce laws in British North America / The United States were much more rational than the horrible pre-1857 divorce system in England, and during parts of U.S. history, there has been a state with noticeably laxer divorce laws than most of the other states (Indiana during part of the 19th century, Nevada during much of the 20th century). AnonMoos (talk) 19:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
This would be my assumption, a sarcastic allusion to the serial marriage practice found particularly among the rich and powerful. I doubt that Dworkin undertook a serious statistical examination comparing the US with other Western countries in the 1970s, or whenever she penned these words. (Rather unscholarly, neither Pinker nor others quoting these sentences provide a traceable bibliographic citation that allows me to date this passage.) --Lambiam14:01, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Yes, as P. G. Wodehouse wrote in Summer Moonshine, "Like so many substantial citizens of America, he had married young and kept on marrying, springing from blonde to blonde like the chamois of the Alps leaping from crag to crag." Deor (talk) 16:05, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
The original seems to be called "Sexual Economics: The Terrible Truth", possibly first published in 1972 in Ms.. Having skimmed the article, she never explains that aside remark - she actually talks mostly about socialist Czechoslovakia and the USSR in the rest of the piece. Some modern quotations of her adapt the quote to "lease it over the long-term (modern marriage/relationship) or own it outright (traditional marriage)" That said, 1972 was just after the first no-fault divorce law was passed in the United States (in California), and looking at Divorce law by country, slightly before most European countries (which liberalized in the mid 70s. Smurrayinchester14:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
This is the full original quote:
In fucking, as in reproduction, sex and econom ics are inextricably joined. In male-supremacist cultures, women are believed to embody carnality; women are sex. A man wants what a woman has—sex. He can steal it (rape), persuade her to give it away (seduction), rent it (prostitution), lease it over the long term (marriage in the United States), or own it outright (marriage in most societies). A man can do some or all of the above, over and over again.
It is indeed from "Sexual Economics: The Terrible Truth", first given as a speech to women at Harper & Row in 1976, and later published by Ms. in what Dworkin calls an "edited" version (her air quotes). The full original speech is published in Letters From a War Zone (1989). See p. 120. -- Jack of Oz22:22, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Economics certainly figure into it, for example ugly rich guys getting pretty women. That's a universal truth. Did Dworkin ever elaborate on her perceived differences between American and other marriages? ←Baseball Bugscarrots→ 00:40, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Yes economics figures into everything and that's a truth, but what's supposedly this universal truth? How about a source? Where in pre-20th-century history was it not true that a rich and high status person, regardless of superficial appearance or indeed gender, could not exert comparable influence on any in the lower classes? In the 21st century so-called-middle-class of developed economies, are there numbers on those who would sell themselves into the described effective rape and slavery to marry those in the uppermost socioeconomic classes? These are all economic questions that are hardly universal, which is the point others are making of how this was an aside remark. SamuelRiv (talk) 05:12, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Even before that, the ease of divorce in some of those there United States was proverbial. "King's Moll Renoed in Wolsey's Home Town". DuncanHill (talk) 17:32, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
It's pretty much a modern expression of an old theory of Marx's. He was writing polemically at the time—hyperbolically, even, perhaps with an element of tongue-in-cheek for the worthy tailors—but the topic is similar:
Our bourgeois, not content with having the wives and daughters of their proletarians at their disposal, not to speak of common prostitutes, take the greatest pleasure in seducing each other's wives ... Bourgeois marriage is in reality a system of wives in common.
The issue is not, however, the hyperbolic nature of Dworkin's passage, or the contrast between bourgeois and proletariat, but the alleged contrast between the US and "most societies", something Marx is mum about. --Lambiam15:03, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Marx, K., The Communist Manifesto (London, 1888; repr. 1985), p.101.
October 11
"The white one"
Who is the white one in myth? In Egypt,: Krauss says "For White One as a synonym for the eastern eye of Horus, cf the Hymns to the Diadem, above." Adolf Erman 1911 gives only one result for "der Weiße". Krauss didn't mention which of the 600-some pages. Any help? (And where does Hathi get off restricting downloads of materials marked public domain?)
Temerarius (talk) 03:24, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
^ Steele, John M.; Imhausen, Annette (2002). Under One Sky. Münster: Ugarit. p. 193. ISBN3-934628-26-5.
Maybe, depending on the context of the article you're working on, the next step is to reframe your question from Who is the white one in myth? to "What is the White One in ancient Egyptian tradition?"If that step is taken, then Hedjet is your answer. If your context does not allow for that interpretation, perhaps more information would help people zero in on an aswer that meets your requirements. Folly Mox (talk) 19:50, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
It being public domain means that if you get your hands on it, then you can freely redistribute it. It doesn't mean that anyone else is obliged to give it to you... AnonMoos (talk) 14:08, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
The ancient Romans didn't really have a concept of zero as a numerical digit in ordinary reckoning (though of course they had several words meaning "nothing"), and a zero numerical digit symbol would not have been needed or useful when writing positive numbers with Roman numerals. The closest they had to a positional notation system was sexagesimal (base-60) and was mainly used by astronomers. The sexagesimal system had a limited internal zero (used when flanked by other numbers on both sides, to indicate an empty place). AnonMoos (talk) 14:01, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
See 0#Transmission to Europe. Arabic numerals including 0 were introduced to Western Europe early in the 13th century, so any time from then on an individual using Roman numerals (and they are of course still in active use today) might have found it convenient to combine 0 with them. Some may have known of classical Greek use of omicron (ο) when working with Babylonian texts that had a 'placeholder' zero symbol, and Hipparchus, Ptolemy and other astronomers' use of the Hellenistic zero (see 0#Classical antiquity) (which the Romans failed to adopt into Roman numerals) around 150 CE (mentioned in the 0 article): I can't reproduce it here, but it comprised a long 'overline' above a tiny circle. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.86.81 (talk) 20:25, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Amusingly, that (like several other characters in the article) doesn't render on my PC: presumably I lack the font. No matter, because I don't myself need to. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.86.81 (talk) 04:26, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for that information. Maybe someone knows a specific example of "any time from then on an individual using Roman numerals (and they are of course still in active use today) might have found it convenient to combine 0 with them".? --KnightMove (talk) 16:19, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
It may be that both (a) this late 15th century tarot is actually the first such example, and (b) you are the first person to have wondered about this point. I have not been able to find any work mentioning it; probably the expertise of a scholar specialising in Mediaeval MSS is needed.
For tangential interest, I have while searching encountered a 52-page work The Elements of abbreviation in medieval Latin paleography by Adriano Cappelli, translated by David Heiman & Richard Kay, University of Kansas Libraries 1982 (googling the title gives access to downloadable pdfs). It doesn't address this particular question, but may be of interest nonetheless. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.86.81 (talk) 19:42, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
Our article on Graham Greene (citing a biography) says that his mother Marion Raymond Greene (1872-1959, the daughter of Carleton Greene and Jane Whytt Elizabeth Anne Wilson) was a cousin of Robert Louis Stevenson. This source specifies they were first cousins. R.L.S.'s grandparents are well known: 1) Robert Stevenson (1750-1852) and his wife Jean Smith, 2) Rev. Lewis Balfour and his wife Henrietta Scott Smith. The names like Greene and Wilson are not listed among R.L.S.'s ancestors, as well as the Scottish names like Stevenson and Balfour are absent among Marion Raymond's ancestors. Could anyone clarify this mystery? Ghirla23:36, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
The ODNB says "Greene, (Henry) Graham (1904–1991), author, was born on 2 October 1904 at St John's, Berkhamsted, Hertfordshire, the fourth of six children of Charles Henry Greene (1865–1942), teacher, and his wife and cousin, Marion Raymond (1872–1959), eldest daughter of the Revd Carleton Greene, whose wife, Jane Wilson, was a first cousin of Robert Louis Stevenson." - so Graham Greene's grand-mother was a first cousin of RLS. DuncanHill (talk) 23:54, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. Indeed, Jane's mother Marion Balfour (1811-1884) was the daughter of the above-mentioned Lewis Balfour! Ghirla00:06, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
0 – Mato
I – Panfilio
II – Postumio
III – Lenpio
, a small circle with a long overbar. --Lambiam 09:08, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
