Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 July 1

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.

July 1

Navarre Witch Trials

Are are any details on the seventeenth century witch trials in Navarre? 80.177.38.137 05:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

See Witch hunt and Sorginak and there is a bare mention in Kingdom of Navarre. Edison 06:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

You would do well to dig out a copy of The Witches' Advocate: Basque Witchcraft and the Spanish Inquisition, 1609-1614 by G. Hennigsen, and The World of the Witches by J. C. Baroja.

The trials of the Basque witches at Longrono, near Navarre, in northern Spain, which began in January 1609, was almost certainly the biggest single event of its kind in history. By the end some 7,000 cases had been examined by the Inquisition. The first phase ended in 1610, with a declaration of auto da fe against thirty-one of the accused, eleven of whom were burned to death. Thereafter proceedings were suspended until the inquisitors had a chance to gather further evidence, on what they believed to be a widespread witch cult in the Basque region. Alonso de Salazar Frias, the junior inquisitor and a lawyer by training, was delegated to examine the matter at length. Armed with an Edict of Grace, promising pardon to all those who voluntarily reported themselves and denounced their accomplices, he travelled across the countryside. As was usual in cases of this kind, denunciations flowed in. Frias finally returned to Longrono with 'confessions' from close on 2000 people, 1,384 of whom were children between the ages of seven and fourteen, implicating a further 5000 named individuals. The evidence gathered covered 11,000 pages in all.

Contrary to the usual picture of the Inquisition, ready to believe all and every confession of wrong doing, Frias, the youngest judge in a panel of three, was highly sceptical about the whole thing, saying that he had found no substantive proof of witchcraft on his travels, in spite of the manifold confessions. More than that, he questioned the whole basis of the trials. Because of this disagreement on how to proceed, the matter had to be referred to the Inquisitor-General in Madrid. The senior judges, Alonso Becerra y Holquin and Juan de Valle Alvadro, even went so far as to accuse their colleague of being 'in league with the Devil.' Some of Frias' objections are truly remarkable, considering the atmosphere of the times, and are therefore worth quoting at length;

The real question is: are we to believe that witchcraft occured in a given situation simply because of what the witches claim? No: it is clear that the witches are not to be believed, and the judges should not pass sentence on anyone, unless the case can be proven with external and objective evidence sufficient to convince everyone who hears it. And who can accept the following: that a person can frequently fly through the air and travel a hundred leagues in an hour; that a woman can get through a space not big enough for a fly; that a person can make himself invisible; that he can be in a river or the open sea and not get wet; or that he can be in bed at the sabbath at the same time...and that a witch can turn herself into any shape she fancies, be it housefly or raven? Indeed, these claims go beyond all human reason and may even pass the limits permitted by the Devil.

Confession and acccusation on their own, Frias maintained, were not enough. It is a great pity that this simple guiding principle was not held in mind, all the way from Salem to Moscow.

The Inquisitor-General shared this view. For some time the central office of the Inquisition had been sceptical about claims of magic and witchcraft, and had only sanctioned the earlier burnings with considerably reluctance, and only because of the reported mood of panic from Longrono. As far back as 1538 the Council had warned judges not to believe all that the read in Malleus Maleficarum, the infamous witch-finding text. In August 1614 it ruled that all of the trials pending at Longrono should be dismissed. At the same time it issued new and more rigorous rules of evidence, that brought witch-burning in Spain to an end, long before the Protestant north. Clio the Muse 00:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Reason and logic worthy of the Skeptical Inquirer is not something I would have expected of the Spanish Inquisition. Edison 03:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, Edison; always be ready to expect the unexpected. Clio the Muse 04:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I split Clio's reply into Basque witch trials, which had actually been linked from Template:History of the Basque people. If someone has additional details about persecutions undetaken by Pierre de Lancre in Labourd, he is welcome to expand the article. --Ghirla^-трёп- 18:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

How did the name "america" originate?

How did the name "america" originate? 203.101.232.178 08:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

See Naming of America and Amerigo Vespucci. Pfly 09:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Always thought it should be Vespuccica.Gzuckier 17:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

There is some sguggestion it is named after Richard Amerike , a Bristol man.

Jewish saying/blessing?

Hello!

I may well have asked this before, but here goes. Long, long ago in a Humanities class my instructor mentioned a Hebrew/Jewish saying that basically boiled down to the idea that everyone/everything is connected, so doing something good helps things, and doing bad makes things worse. Similar to "The whole is as good as its part." What I remember it sounding like is "Ashiv Ha Olam," but while "ha-olam" and "ha olam" pull up results, they aren't what I'm looking for. Does anyone know what this saying was?

Thanks for your time! Russia Moore 10:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd recommend asking the Languages desk. However, you might need to give everyone a bit more help, as "The whole is as good as its part." isn't really too similar to the type of phrase you describe in the preceeding words. Olam/Ha'olam usually means world/the world, not that I think that'll particularly help you :-( --Dweller 20:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

You're likely looking for Tikkun olam or a related concept. Perhaps also you encountered the passage from the Talmud (famous from Schindler's List) about how destroying one life is like the destruction of the entire world, but the saving of one life is like the saving of the entire world..--Pharos 00:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Banking and money

Can a bank not do the money tranfer???I mean why do we require a special company like Western Union for the money transfer??Ndeolalikar 10:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes.

We do not required a special company for money transfer. It's free market, so Western Union is free to provide money transfer services.

211.28.121.217 11:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Brother of Petrarch

History has recorded that in the spring of 1336 Petrarch climbed Mont Ventoux with his brother Gherado and two companions just for the sport. This was the beginnings of alpinism. Is there any historical information about Gherado? (i.e. his family, place and time born, wife's name, children, anything else he did of significance)--Doug ^talk 12:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

There are a few Google hits for "Gherardo Petrarca", but all but one is non-English and the English hit doesn't seem to provide any information. Corvus cornix 19:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

You will find a mine of information about Petrarch's correspondence with his brother (who entered the Carthusian monastery at Montrieux in 1343) by following this link and searching the book for "Gherardo". --Ghirla^-трёп- 16:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the great information about Petrarch's correspondence with his brother Gherardo. It appears he entered this monastery when he was about 36 years of age (1343 - 1307). Apparently he never married nor fathered any children. The last reference makes note of Petrarch's Ascent of Mont Ventoux - then one is not entitled to any further "preview" of the source book. Are you very familiar with this event?--Doug ^talk 13:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Cold side of the moon

I am hoping someone can explain to me the meaning of the phrase, "cold side of the moon". I would have thought it meant something dead or sterile, but that doesn't really make sense in the context in which I read it.

To give some background, the book is set in early 19th century England (actually on a ship in the navy), and the speaker is talking about how some of the crew are showing a woman on board a great deal of attention. She returns this attention, even to the more unattractive ones and to "one-eyed Martin, though he, poor fellow, is not always discreet, and has sometimes seen the cold side of the moon, the Medea I spoke of long ago." Here's a link to google books, in order to read it in context [1]. I'm used to Patrick O'Brian being a little inscrutable at times, but I could make no sense of this. --Joelmills 14:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The Google Books link doesn't work for me (probably differences in copyright status), but Medea is a female character from Greek mythology who did some terrible things, and mythologically speaking the moon is usually seen as female, so perhaps the "cold side of the moon" in this context means that Martin, being unattractive, has often been treated cruelly by women in the past, and this particular woman is unusual in being nice to him? Not having the full context I can't be sure, but it seems to make sense. --Nicknack009 21:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I can really only offer some speculation, because the real meaning is in the mind of the author; but I am guessing that he alludes to the Dark side of the Moon, to things unseen, and in the context of the Medea reference, to things best left unseen. Clio the Muse 23:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course, unlike Mercury, there is no cold side of the moon or dark side of the moon, there's just the side we can't see from earth. Gzuckier 17:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Neither does Mercury have a cold side :-D Skittle 20:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses everybody. --Joelmills 01:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Mindfulness

I had a go at mindfulness recently while cycling in the countryside. It felt like I was simply sitting in a cinema watching a film rather than being there (yet paradoxically I saw something on the internet where it says feeling as though you were watching a film is what you should aim for). This removed the pleasure of actually being in the countryside rather than just watching it on TV. It also reminds me of the feeling of seeing the world through a gas mask that I once heard about in a radio program about schizophrenia. What was I doing wrong?

I also wonder if perhaps I am naturally in a state something like mindfulness much of the time and was overdoing it on that ocassion. And I wonder if it would be possible to produce a classification or diagram that relates similar mental states such as zanshin together? 80.2.194.3 14:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

At least in a Buddhist context, mindfulness includes awareness of one's surroundings and one's emotional states. That needs to be made clearer in the article. When learning meditation, it is very easy to misunderstand this aspect of mindfulness, and if you're not careful it can lead to alienation, which is why meditation is best learned from a teacher.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

British military death toll in Iceland during WW2

I've looked at World War II casualties#Casualties by country, which says that the answer is 0. I am almost certain that that is incorrect. Anyone have any idea? MHDIV ɪŋglɪʃnɜː(r)d(Suggestion?|wanna chat?) 16:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The figure given in the page you have linked is for Icelanders killed in World War Two, not British service personnel in Iceland. A figure of 200 out of a total population of 119,000 (0.17%) would seem to me about right, as Iceland was well away from the main combat areas. According to the article these deaths were from German attacks-U boats, presumably-and from mines. It also links to an Icelandic source. If you have any more precise information, Englishnerd, then I would be pleased to know what it is. Clio the Muse 22:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Britain only occupied Iceland for a short period of time between the fall of Denmark in 1940 and when control was handed over to the USA in 1941 (before the attack on Pearl Harbour). British losses in Iceland itself would have been normal attrition caused by accidents, etc as I think it's just about out of range of German bombers operating from Norway. I suspect some Icelanders fought alongside Free Danish forces, though how they were deployed or just maintained in Iceland as a deterrent against a German invasion, and they also probably lost sailors who would have probably mostly served in the Merchant Navy.

Petrarch's children

Petrarch had a son Giovanni, born (~ January) of 1337. He also had a daughter Francesca, born (~ June) of 1343. Since Petrarch was quite busy writing many of his large scale notable works (i.e. "Africa") during 1339 - 1359, what records are there that show he had help raising his children? Who helped him to raise his children or were they raised by the "unknown woman" that gave birth to his children? Any clues as to who this "unknown woman" is? Are there exact birth dates for Giovanni and Francesca?--Doug ^talk 18:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Prince of England

If Prince Charles is the Prince of Wales, who is the Prince of England, and why isn't the heir to the British throne the Prince of England?

See Prince of Wales... it's a bit of political point-scoring that's, erm, about 700 years old (and has therefore lost much of its edge). When Edward I created his weedy son Edward II as "Prince of Wales", it was a deliberate bit of face-slapping to show the Welsh that they were well and truly conquered (and no longer had a true Prince of Wales like this one). Like much to do with the British monarchy, once someone started doing something, it kind of perpetuates itself. --Dweller 22:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

There has never been a 'Prince of England', because England, unlike Wales, is a kingdom, and not a principality. The title Prince of Wales has usually been conferred, by royal prerogative, upon the eldest living son of the reigning monarch, though not always, a tradition that began in 1301. And, Dweller, I am not really sure that it is altogether fair to describe Edward of Caernarfon as 'weedy.' Clio the Muse 22:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you claiming that Mel Gibson wasn't historically accurate in Braveheart? -- Kainaw^(what?) 01:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, lèse majesté! How could my heart possibly be so brave? I assume this is not a serious question, Kainaw; but, if it is, I will give you a broadside, if you wish! It may be great drama; as history it is terrible! Clio the Muse 01:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

<Ahem> It's punsomely apt to call Eddy II "weedy", as contemporary chroniclers (I forget which) described his affection for "hedging and ditching"... presumably horrorified that he spurned "manly" pursuits such as falconry and hunting! --Dweller 10:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, his favoured pursuits did indeed consist of hedging and ditching, as well as building walls, thatching and rowing, not in the best aristocratic tradition, but hardly, one would have thought, the pastimes of a 'weedy' individual. He also enjoyed hunting, incidentally. Physically Edward was almost as imposing as his formidable father, which would have made him bigger and stronger than most of his contemporaries, and he fought with great personal courage at the Battle of Bannockburn. What I am reacting against Dweller-and I know this was not your intention-is the 'limp-wristed' stereotype, favoured in movies like the awful Braveheart (Sorry, I do think it's awful!) Clio the Muse 01:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Because only one person (not counting a consort) can have "of England" as a title, and that's the monarch. Similarly (though it's not an exact parallel), the heir-apparent of a British earl, marquess or duke is known by the incumbent's next lower peerage, provided that it has a different name. (For example, the Duke of Manchester is also Earl of Manchester, Viscount Mandeville and Baron Kimbolton; his heir-apparent has the courtesy title Viscount Mandeville, not Earl of Manchester.) On another hand, every child of the monarch is a "Prince(ss) of the United Kingdom of GB&NI", but I don't think that's a title: Prince Edward before he was given a peerage was (i think) styled "The Prince Edward" or if necessary "Prince Edward of GB&NI", not "Edward, Prince of ...". —Tamfang 03:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I beg to differ. QE2 is not Queen of England, or of Scotland, or of Wales, or of Northern Ireland. None of those places has a monarch per se. QE2 is Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Since Wales has a prince, it could be argued that Wales has a more elevated monarchical position than England, which has no monarch of its own. And since she is also Queen of Australia, Queen of New Zealand, Queen of Papua New Guinea and 12 other Commonwealth Realms, it could be argued that any of these former colonies of England (or of Great Britain in some cases) has a more senior position than any of the constituent countries of the UK, including England. -- JackofOz 06:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, well, I'm not convinced that the merger of the title "King of England" into "King of Great Britain" (et seq.) makes room to create a new title "of England". —Tamfang 17:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

So we're in agreement then, Tamfang? Your previous post was suggesting the monarch is the King/Queen of England. -- JackofOz 03:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I myself have occasionally been pedantic enough to mention that there is no Queen of England; but I'd argue that the title is not so much vacant as abeyant: various constitutional changes could bring a title "of England" back to life, and it's clear who would wear it (leaving aside any Jacobite quibbles which aren't relevant here), and her name isn't Charles. —Tamfang 05:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

If that's pedantry, I'm perfectly happy to be called a pedant. -- JackofOz 12:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

What did Surrealists like Andre Breton and others think about Zionism?

As much as I know Andre Breton and his surrealist group in Paris appreciated the foundation of Israel in 1948. But I really wasn´t able to find reliable sources for that. Can anybody help? 77.2.106.24 22:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

You might find what you are looking for in Revolution of the Mind: The Life of Andre Breton by Mark Polizzotti. Clio the Muse 23:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I did not find anything in Polizzotti´s book about that topic. New answer please here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#What_did_Surrealists_like_Andre_Breton_and_others_think_about_Zionism.3F_277.2.105.145 14:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

This answer goes round the houses a bit but... The Surrealists allied themselves with communism, and presumably toed the party line. At that time (roughly) the USSR was opposed to Zionism, seeing it as a form of Nationalism. So they were most likely opposed. BUT this is simply me inferring without knowledge of Surrealism's stated view of zionism, if they had one. Totnesmartin 21:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)