Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 July 4

Humanities desk
< July 3	<< Jun | July | Aug >>	July 5 >

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 4

Lewis Libby

While I was listening to the radio today and getting enraged about Lewis Libby getting a commuted sentence, a thought occured to me. They were talking about the fine that Libby was given and it made me wonder how much he made as Cheney's Chief of Staff. I'm betting that the $250,000 that he was fined was pretty close to what he was making in just one year in the White House and that this probably isn't as bad as it sounds to the average guy on the street when thought of in these terms. One year's salary for me would be a large sum of money but not so insurmountable that it couldn't be overcome. So how much did he make per year? And, I also figure that with the book deals and such that he could get out of this, that the figure becomes even more insignificant. So am I way off base or what? Dismas|^(talk) 02:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

According to this, his salary was $157,000 in 2004. Carom 02:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

You needn't worry too much, though. According to Slate, and a report on Air America, Lewis I. Libby is possessed of the largest personal fortune of any of the staffers in that branch of government. I.e. it won't hurt as much as it would if it had been even Armitage (who is no working class hero, himself). Geogre 02:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you both. Now I'm even more let down by my president... Thanks again for the info. Dismas|^(talk) 03:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Friends of the Bush admininistration have contibuted $5,000,000 already to Libby's legal defense fund, so a $250,000 fine is quite imperceptible; less than a slap on the wrist. Now let's sit back and wait for Presidential commutations of the "excessive" 30 month sentences previously given to others who lied to grand juries. How many commutations of death sentences were given while Bush was Governor of Texas and Gonzales was his Attorney General? Edison 05:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The precise answer is: not many, if any. See for example "What is Bush's overall pardoning/ commuting record?" in this article. --Halcatalyst 03:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

No one seems too upset at the fact that Sandy "the burglar" Berger stole documents from the National Archives in his underwear and he didn't go to jail. Or Clinton lied to a Grand Jury and he didn't go to jail. This is just keeping in line with those decisions.

This is OT but Clinton didn't commit perjury. At least according to all the legal opinions I've read (which isn't many but they mostly appear to be good ones). Basically the judge and legal team in the case fucked up in their definition of sexual intercourse and Clinton, being a lawyer was able to use that to his advantage Nil Einne 04:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Mexicans and Roman Catholicism

Why are most Mexicans Roman Catholics? User:Heegoop, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

History. Mexico was settled by Spaniards, who brought their Catholic missionaries with them. But there is a growing Pentecostal movement in Latin America. The Mexican Constitution is also specifically anti-clerical, so there is a love-hate relationship anent the Church in Mexico. Corvus cornix 02:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

European Orphanage education (ca 1900)

A few questions about how orphanages in Europe (I'm most interested in what would happen at a Catholic orphanage in Prague, but I'll take whatever approximations I can get) would operate: At what age would education complete and the boys released into the world? What would the curriculum typically be? Did classes break for the summer and what would the boys in the orphanage do during those times? (For that matter, what about the urban non-orphanage schools of that period?) Donald Hosek 04:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

A Worldwide Council of Islam

Is there an international organization that includes, involves, coordinates, and represents all the different branches and denominations of Islam? I mean, an organization that is for the different representives, leaders, and members of the different denominations of Islam to meet, confer, discuss, and cooperate together. I mean, an organization that is to Islam what the World Council of Churches is to Christianity.

Bowei Huang 05:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the Organization of the Islamic Conference? Corvus cornix 06:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The OIC is an international political grouping of Islamic countries, not an institution of religious ecumenism. As far as I know it has very little in common with the World Council of Churches.--Pharos 21:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

They sponsor several international organizations, including Islamic Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Corvus cornix 23:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The Enchantments of Monks

Does anyone know of whom it was said, "He lived like a monk amid his enchantments"? It doesn't show up on Google and apart from that I don't know where to look. Thanks guys. MelancholyDanish 07:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)MelancholyDanish

Sorry... closest I can come to it is by Tolstoy in Anna Karenina, but it's not a single quote, and I don't think it has the meaning reflected by the sentence you've provided. ◄Zahakiel► 18:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Christian Zervos said it of someone. I have tried mangling it into french but I still could not find it. If you have an amazon account you can search inside the book and find it quoted in this book http://www.amazon.com/Banquet-Years-Roger-Shattuck/dp/0394704150/ref=pd_bbs_2/105-9774531-6836445?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1183866050&sr=8-2 which will presumably tell you who he is reffering to. meltBanana 03:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Surname Distributions

I know there will be no exact answer to this question, but is it possible to estimate whether a surname originated from just one family from it's distribution today? The fascinating [1] website from University College London, shows census results from 1881 and 1991. The less common names are often situated mainly around one central county, and simply spread out in the 110 years between surveys. I assume had census's (censi?) gone back another hundred years the distribution would have shrunk further. Is it known if this implies a surname originated once in one place then spread? Or if it is simply common in one local dialect? Cyta 08:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

There is an article pertaining to the rise of the Jedi. Brighton seems to be a hotspot of Jedi activity. Lanfear's Bane

Brighton is a hotspot for all sorts of activity I hear. Can we conclude Jedis are more likely to be gay? Thank God(Yoda?) the authorities saw sense and didn't accept this poor geeky joke. Anyway that's slightly off topic. Cyta 09:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be a bit hasty to conclude this. I would estimate that The University of Brighton would be more likely to have been the reason for this concentration of Jedi. The Jedi Code also states: "There is no emotion; there is peace." Emotions of homosexual nature (love or lust) would therefore be unlikely to be the reason. We could conclude of course that the Jedi are fiction, created by a bearded human male and therefore this discussion is irrelevant. Lanfear's Bane

Nicholas Wade's Before the Dawn [2] addresses just this question at one point using genetic data. His conclusion is that many surnames did, in fact, originate from just one or a small number of male ancestors. I don't know that a purely geographic answer is possible, and non-paternal events complicate the genetic approach, but your intuition is probably about right. Donald Hosek 16:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Donald, I know it's hard to be exact, when I see two hotspots it could be either two independent occurances, or one rare movement in the distant past, I guess. It is interesting how contained surnames are, even in to 1991 there are some almost entirely in one county. Thanks again, Cyta 08:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I presume you're talking about European surnames. Chinese surnames have different histories Nil Einne 04:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes sorry if I wasn't clear about that, the website I linked to, from a London University refers to surnames in the United Kingdom, really I was interested in English/British surnames, although I assume the rest of Europe would follow a similar pattern. Cyta 07:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

How did one greet a cardinal in the middle ages?

Say you are a young noble, being introduced to Cardinal Bessarion - what do you say and do, how do you address him?

Thanks - Adambrowne666 10:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

A quick Google search and the article on forms of religious address indicate that it would be 'Your Eminence'. Lanfear's Bane

Would one have knelt and kissed his ring too? DuncanHill 11:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I was a little scared to search 'ring kissing'. Article to be found here. Lanfear's Bane

Only if he turned round and bent over I would think.

thanks - but what precedes 'Your Eminence'? In Bessarion's time, what did one say instead of Hello?

Nothing. 'Your Eminence' counts as an address. Anyway, surely he would not have been addressed in English? Lanfear's Bane

Surely, a young noble who does not want to appear boorish would engage in a bit of gracious conversation, something like "Your Eminence, I have heard so much about you, and it is such a pleasure and honour to meet you in person". That has, however, little to do with the cardinalship of the addressee.  --Lambiam^Talk 00:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

How about "Salvete!" for starters?Retarius | Talk 01:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

"Salve!" would greet one person; "salvete!" would greet two or more people. Publius3 20:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

A young noble might very well have opted for a medieval "wassup?" Pah, the rudeness of young people, mumble, grumble... --Dweller 08:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Good answers, thanks Adambrowne666 10:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Food Crops

... is a redirect to Agriculture, but not explained there. I would need an explanation. --KnightMove 12:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Erm - the redirect has been deleted. --KnightMove 12:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure you typed the right thing? The deletion logs for Food Crops and Food crops are both empty. ShadowHalo 20:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Food crop redirects to Agriculture.  --Lambiam^Talk 21:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

What sort of explanation are you looking for? A food crop is a crop that is grown for food. There are so many that there is not much more to be said unless you want to be more specific. Therefore it makes sense to redirect this to agriculture, which is the science and art of growing food crops.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Gibbon and the Antonines

Having received a superb answer to my previous question on David Hume and history, here is my second bite, which is concerned also with an eighteenth century thinker, this time Edward Gibbon. At the beginning of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire he paints a very favourable picture of the age of the Antonine Emperors. Is this a reflection of his politics? Did he approve, in other words, of the Continental despots of his own day, like, for example, Frederick II? As I said in my previous question, this is most assuredly NOT homework, but part of an investigation into the intellectual and political roots of history writing in the Age of the Enlightenment. My thanks Martinben 13:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Remember Gibbon was a historian not a writer of political allegory. --Wetman 23:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but you see, Wetman, the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire is indeed as much political allegory as it is history. It is both a celebration and a warning; a celebration of the Imperial achievment and a warning over the sources of decay. For the man who walked through the ruined Forum, reflecting on the vanished glory of Rome, as his ears were filled with the chants of barefooted friars, was as much Marcus Brutus as he was Edward Gibbon. For Gibbon, in the guise of Brutus, the root cause of Roman decline was neither Christainity nor was it Barbarians: it was the wilful abdication of the old republican virtues of freedom and public service.

Anyway, here is the passage to which I believe Martin alludes;

If a man were called to fix a period in the history of the world, during which the condition of the human race was most happy and prosperous, he would, without hesitation, name that which elapsed from the death of Domitian to the accession of Commodus. The vast extent of the Roman empire was governed by absolute power, under the guidance of virtue and wisdom.

It is an age of tolerance, of domestic peace and of social harmony. But yet something is missing; and that something is what Gibbon refers to as the 'inestimable gift of freedom.' I am not talking here about 'democracy', which for Gibbon was a dangerous thing, but the concept of the 'balanced constitution'; of law, social responsibility, civic duty and good governance all working in harmony; the kind of constitution that emerged in 1689 after the Glorious Revolution in England. It is, if you like, also the constitution of the old Roman Republic at its zenith, before it was destroyed by mob violence, class conflict and civil war. For Gibbon civilized life has to be based on an ideal combination of order and 'rational freedom', created by the Republic but lost by the Empire. The Empire, even the Empire of the Antonines, was based on despotism, and as such was "destitute of constitutional freedom." The Antonine state was, as he puts it, "an absolute monarchy disguised by the forms of the commonwealth." In other words, if the rule of the Antonines was benevolent it was benevolent by chance alone. It gave rise to Marcus Aurelius; but it could just as easily give way to Commodus.

The contrast Gibbon draws between Aurelius, the father, and Commodus, the son, was intended to highlight the fragility of the whole Antonine age. Benevolence had been created by chance, not by design, the fundamental truth that lies at the root of all despotism. The image of liberty, to put this another way, was not the same as true liberty. Gibbon admired Marcus Aurelius-just as he admired Frederick the Great-for his personal qualities; but imperial rule was still "absolute and without control." For Gibbon it is a mark of a truly good society that no single individual should be entrusted with absolute power-"Unless public liberty is protected by intrepid and vigilant guardians the authority of so formidable a magistrate will degenerate into despotism." After all, virtue and wisdom are not hereditary. Would not Brutus nod his head in agreement?

The other point connected to this-and herein lies the real explanation for the subsequent and relentless decline of the Roman world-is that benevolent despotism is demoralising and enervating. Under the Antonines the days of Cicero and the free nobility are long gone; private comfort has replaced civic responsibility: the Empire is set to decline because the 'will to freedom' has been lost-"as long as they [the nobility] were indulged in the enjoyment of their baths, their theatres and their villas, they cheerfully resigned the more dangerous cares of empire." More than this, in public felicity lay the latent causes of corruption-"The Roman monarchy, having attained its full strength and maturity, began to verge towards its decline." The causes are internal, and the Empire could never have fallen to Barbarians, or been undermined by the Christians, if it had not already been corrupted from within. The Romans may have retained personal valour, but they no longer "possessed that public courage, which is nourished by the love of independence."

Ultimately, Gibbon's view of the whole Roman world, no matter his residual sympathy, is one condescension and superiority; of celebration of his own time, of the age of virtue and progress. The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire is Brutus' final vindication. Clio the Muse 01:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Russian Orthodox Domes

I need to know the history behind the onion domes of the Russian Orthodox Churches: how they were decided, why this shape??19:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)19:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)19:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)19:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)19:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)19:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)~~

Onion dome has the answers for you! You may want to use the search function first next time before asking here - it might save you time. Cheers! Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Had you read the question you would not have been so condescending as to suggest I use the search function. I did that! Perhaps you should read more carefully before responding and try to deal with the matter at hand.

How was that clear from the question? If you don't want to be viewed as a newbie, then don't write like one. Note: of course there's nothing wrong with being a newbie. We all started as one. DirkvdM 06:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow. I typed "Onion dome" into the search box, and the article came up; it had what appeared to be the information the request was asking about. I mentioned the search box as a reminder that it takes less time to do a search for such a topic than to leave a question here. No condescension intended. (Man, I get barked at a lot lately...) Tony Fox (arf!) review? 22:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the article did not appear helpful, because it was seriously vandalized back in February. I have not monitored this good article since the time I wrote it; it's a pity that nobody else does. --Ghirla^-трёп- 16:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Music theory question

I've been going through the triad and related articles, but I think I made a mistake somewhere along the way. Is there any way to classify (augmented, diminished, etc.) a C#-E-A chord? The song is written in A major if it helps any. ShadowHalo 20:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

That would be an inverted triad, often revered to as a 6/3 voicing (because of the internal intervals) I think this is sometimes also just called a 6th (or is that the 6/4 voicing?). Donald Hosek 21:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's an A-major chord in first inversion. I wouldn't say it's called "a 6th," but in a figured bass it would be indicated simply by the number 6 in addition to the C# bass note (to quote that article on its relevant example: "The next note has a 6, indicating a note a sixth above it should be played; the 3 has been omitted—in other words, this chord is in first inversion"). Wareh 22:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

To clarify (not knowing how much you know), an inversion is a variation of a chord, based on the notion that a note one octave higher is basically the same note. So if you replace the root note of a triad with the same note one octave higher you basically have the same chord. This is the first inversion. With a triad, after the third inversion you've got the root note at the bottom again, but the whole chord has moved up one octave. Of course, inversions do sound different, but harmonically they're the same (not entirely sure if that is the right word). DirkvdM 06:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

If you want to say they are the same without actually saying it, you can always say that they are equivalent.  --Lambiam^Talk 12:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Tonic Triad.martianlostinspace 17:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

If the piece is in A Major, then you'd notate that chord as I⁶.

The notation you'd use would depend on context, the purpose of the notation, the sort of music, etc. For example, you could also notate it Ib (where, if Wikipedia used a different font, that I would be a roman numeral 1), with the 'b' indicating that it is the first inversion and the I indicating it is the tonic chord. You might find it useful to read a music theory book, either a general book (such as the AB guides) or one specific to the particular music you're working with. Skittle 22:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I went through the inversion (music) article, and I think I get it now. But now I'm stumped on how to describe these two others. The first is A-D-E, and the second is F-A-D-E. The key for both is D minor. Would the F-A-D-E be an inverted chord (since F-A-D is an inverted D minor chord), and would it still be a seventh chord since E forms a minor seventh with the bass note. ShadowHalo 06:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

"Inverted chord" and "seventh chord" are not exclusive of each other. Since seventh chords contain more notes, they can be inverted more ways. But your F-A-D-E (and conceivably your A-D-E) is an inverted ninth chord (see added tone chord and suspended chord), not a seventh chord. But depending on the context & interpretation, you should bear in mind that any given tone may not be part of the chordal harmony: see nonchord tone. Wareh 15:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Westfield, Mass car hop drive-in restaurant 1960

I am trying to find the name of a drive-in restaurant that was located on the corner of Little River Rd. and Rt. 20 in Westfield, Mass. during the 1950-60's. It car a car hop service and was later turned into an Arby's, and then Roy Roger's. It is now a vacant lot. The original name escapes me but I spent many nights there during high school. 75.67.26.91 22:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Your best source would probably be a public library in that area. They would likely have old business directories (sorted by address) and also old phone books (so you could look under restaurants in the yellow pages). If the library nearest the location is a small one that doesn't have them itself, they would be able to tell you which one would. Alternatively, of course, you could find people who went to high school with you and ask if they remember. --Anonymous, July 4, 2007, 23:28 (UTC).

You might also try the local courthouse. They are sure to have records of land ownership. 152.16.188.111 03:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Something seems to be wrong with their web page, but the best place to look would probably be the Westfield Athenaeum at 6 Elm St. I'm not sure that it would help to search at the registry of deeds, since the restaurant may have leased the property from an owner with a name unrelated to the restaurant, but if you wanted to go that route, the place would be the Hampden County Registry of Deeds in Springfield or at their Westfield satellite office. Marco polo 14:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Edward Aetheling

What is the significance of Edward Aetheling in english history BlackfordC 22:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

As you can tell from reading our comprehensive Edgar Ætheling article, his's lasting achievements including driving the werewolves out of Shropshire, the demolition of Westminster Abbey, and helping to persuade the Nissan corporation to built its factory in Sunderland. 81.144.253.113 22:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Another of his achievements is seemingly to be able to substitute himself for someone else altogether! Edward Aetheling is also known as Edward the Exile. Edgar Aetheling was his son. Edward's true signifcance in English history-not reflected in the Wikipedia page-is that he offered the last chance of an undisputed succession within the Saxon royal house. He was the recognised heir of Edward the Confessor, and his sudden death in 1057 left the throne of England to be disputed by Harold Godwinson, of the house of Wessex, and William, Duke of Normandy. But for Edward's death the Norman Conquest may never have happened.

Edward was the son of Edmund Ironside (did I not come across this name quite recently?), half-brother to the Confessor. After the Danish conquest of England in 1016 Cnut had him and his brother, Edmund, exiled to the Continent. For some years nothing was known of their fate, and they were both assumed to have been killed. It wasn't until the 1050s that the Confessor, now King of England, learned that Edward was still alive and in Hungary. It was welcome news; for the king was childless, and the question of the succession looked set to destroy the unity and security of the kingdom.

News of Edward's existence came at time when the old Anglo-Saxon Monarchy, restored after a long period of Danish domination, was heading for catastrophe. The Confessor, personally devout but politically weak, was unable to make an effective stand against the steady advance of the powerful and ambitous Earl Godwin. From across the Channel Duke William also had an eye on the succession, and England was divided between seemingly irreconcilable Saxon and Norman influences. The seesaw of English politics saw one faction at the top, quickly followed by the other. Edward the Exile came at just the right time. Approved by both king and by the Witan, the Council of the Realm, he offred a way out of the impasse, a counter both to the Godwins and to William, and one with a legitimacy that could not be readily challenged.

Edward, who had been in the custody Henry III, the Holy Roman Emperor, finally came back to England at the end of August 1057. But he died within two days of his arrival. His son, Edgar, was nominated as heir apparent, but was too young to count for much, and was eventually swept aside by Harold Godwinson. The exact cause of Edward's death remains unclear, but he had many powerful enemies, and there is a strong possibility that he was murdered, although by whom we cannot say with any certainty. We do know, though, that his access to the king was blocked soon after his arrival in Engand for some unexplained reason, at at time when the Godwins, in the person of Earl Harold, were once again in the ascent. Did Harold have his rival murdered? It's possible, but we will never know for sure. What we do know is that England could no longer avoid 1066. Clio the Muse 03:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Clio, I incorporated your reply into Edward the Exile, adding several details. What interests me is the fate of Edward's brother Edmund, and specifically whether he was the Varangian prince who stayed at the court of Yaroslav the Wise and gave rise to the House of Vorontsov, among many other noble families (Dmitry Donskoy's mother stemmed from one of these). I also removed your association of Harold with the House of Wessex, because in English Wikipedia the term refers, somewhat confusingly, to the House of Cerdic. Another discrepancy: our article claims he died in February rather than in August. --Ghirla^-трёп- 19:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Clio's probably covered most relevant things, but Edward, through his daughter Margeret, who married the Scottish King Malcolm III, is a direct descendent of the House of Stuart, and therefore our modern royal family. I am sure there are other links in the inbred royals of Europe, but that's at least one example of the influences of our Anglo-Saxon ancestors not being completely destroyed by the Normans. Cyta 08:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I hate to nit-pick (actually, I love to nit-pick, it's just impolite to admit it), but Edward is an ancestor, not a descendent of the House of Stuart. DuncanHill 16:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem Duncan, I love to as well, I should really do it on my own writing more often!Cyta 07:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Descent of Elizabeth II from Egbert even shows the Queen's descent from the House of Wessex, via Margeret. Wikipedia really does have an article for all occasions doesn't it! Cyta 08:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

In fact Margeret's daughter Mathilda married Henry I, William the Bastard's son, so Anglo-Saxon royal blood reentered English royalty almost immediately. So this is atleast one alternative line through which Elizabeth II can claim descent from Cerdic (and through him from Woden!) Cyta 07:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Rollo of Normandy could claim descent from Woden on as solid (or rather flimsy) footing as Cerdic. My article Agatha, wife of Edward the Exile contains additional details about Edward's genealogical connections. --Ghirla^-трёп- 17:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

w00t! As a (very) disputed genealogy of one line of my family tree claims descent from Harold Godwinson, does this mean I'm descended from Woden? Corvus cornix 02:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. Godwin's ancestry is painfully obscure. You could descent from Harold only through Mstislav the Great, whose mother was Gytha of Wessex. See my page about that lady. On the other hand, Mstislav's patrilineal ancestor Rurik would be Woden's descendant, if we accept his identification with Rorik of Dorestad. And if you trust Snorri's genealogies, of course. --Ghirla^-трёп- 12:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)