Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2015 January 6

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.

January 6

Titles and authors of novels

Are there reference books or web sites that can identify novels and authors based on plot lines, principal characters, historical settings, etc.?173.67.38.55 (talk) 00:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Goodreads is a popular website that some of those features. --Jayron32 01:12, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

AbeBooks has such a forum here. --Antiquary (talk) 10:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Or you can try us here! --Viennese Waltz 10:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Presumably the categorization of articles should help the OP. There's no guarantee it's exhaustive, but it should be a good start. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Tsar's children

According to Grand Duchess Olga Nikolaevna of Russia's article The Tsar's children were raised as simply as possible, sleeping on hard camp cots unless they were ill, taking cold baths every morning. Servants called Olga and her siblings by their first names and patronyms rather than by their imperial titles." What was the purpose of this almost Spartan style of raising these children? Was it something only Nicholas II did to his children or was it a Russian imperial tradition for all the tsar's children? How were the children of his predecessor's (Nicholas I down to Alexander III) raised?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 02:09, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The reason, presumably, would be to keep them from growing up as spoiled brats, which in turn might make them poor leaders and potentially lead to them being removed from power. StuRat (talk) 04:57, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't know the details, but by all accounts Nicholas was a very nice guy. He took his responsibilities very seriously and conscientiously and really loved his family. Kind of like Louis XVI, who was also a much nicer guy than his predecessors. Of course, in both cases, a more ruthless guy might have had a better chance of keeping things under control and of surviving. As things went, he got no respect from anybody and most Russians think of him as one of the worst rulers ever. --Ornil (talk) 05:55, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

It seems Nicholas II and his siblings were raised in the same Spartan manner. Was it just a practice that Alexander III introduce and later his son follow?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 09:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Pure speculation on my part, but I do know that Alexander III's wife, Maria Feodorovna, had been raised with relatively little money (based on what I know of her sister, Alexandra of Denmark). So perhaps Maria raised their children in a Spartan-like manner, and her son Nicholas II continued his mother's approach? Ruby 2010/2013 17:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Two term limits in Rwanda and DR Congo

Do Rwanda have a two term limit restriction for presidential elections? Paul Kagame were elected as president of Rwanda in 2000 and the next election is 2016. Will Paul Kagame still be eligible to elect as president, or he will be prohibited from next election? Does Republic of Congo and DR Congo have a two term restrictions for president election. I remember on other day I was researching President of the Democratic Republic of the Congo it said for Joseph Kabila the term length is five years renewable once, for Denis sassou Nguesso it just said seven years. Will they still be eligible to re-elect as president at next term?--107.202.105.233 (talk) 02:21, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Two terms only in Rwanda. Rwandan constitution Article 101. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 06:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

With regards to the DRC, Article 70 of the constitution states clearly that the President is elected for a five-year mandate which can be renewed only once. [1]. For the other Congo, the presidential mandate is seven years and only two mandates are allowed; moreover a candidate cannot be over 70 (Sassou Nguesso is now 71). [2]. In both cases the constitution would need to either be changed or ignored for them to run again. --Xuxl (talk) 12:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

"Rescuing" a pirate

In the Pirates of Penzance, Frederick appeals to the maidens "to rescue him from his unfortunate position" by marrying him. Obviously, a "fallen woman" could be "rescued" that way, she automatically became respectable in that case. I always took this to be the intended joke - gender reversal. I do wonder if indeed it was somehow possible in Victorian times to improve a disreputable man's standing by a respectable marriage in the same fashion, or would the audience of G&S find this to be an obvious intended nonsense. Any thoughts? --Ornil (talk) 02:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd think it's always possible. Not automatically, but impress the right influential father, and he'll vouch for you. The more despicable you've been, the higher you'll need to go, but the higher you go, the less impressive your despicable acts become. Only the lowest of the low reach the very top, but you wouldn't know it to hear it from their friends.

But yeah, in this case, seems to be for laughs. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:12, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

It's apparently been prevalent throughout history. That paper starts with a Renaissance case. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:19, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I am sure that's true, but it was a rare enough thing. I am trying to figure it out if it was intended to be taken as a joke. --Ornil (talk) 06:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I never took it as a joke, nor to have anything to do with his social standing per se. Frederic's "unfortunate position" is his lack of beautiful young female companionship. His piratehood doesn't have much to do with that except that it's what he's begging to be forgiven for. --Trovatore (talk) 06:32, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

No small part of his "unfortunate position" is that he was apprenticed as a pirate for what he thought was seven years - but because the contract read seven birthdays, and he was born onf February 29, he's apparently stuck with this role for 28 years. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:44, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

21 birthdays! "That birthday will not be reached by me till 1940". This enables us to date the setting of the operetta quite precisely to 28 February or 1 March 1873 (Frederick's birth date being 29 February 1852) - not the best time of year to paddle in the sea in Cornwall, but it is fictional. Tevildo (talk) 08:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Oops, you're right. Worse than I remembered. And definitely an "unfortunate position." It's interesting to ponder how far away the year 1940 must have seemed to an audience of the 1870s. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The Pirates of Penzance was introduced late in 1879. If his 84 years were to end in 1940, that would imply an 1856 birthdate and a setting of 1877. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

1900 wasn't a leap year. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

D'oh! You're right. In any case, it should be clear what Fred's "unfortunate position" was. Of course he found a way out of it, or rather someone else found it. But that would be a "spoiler". :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

But was this commonly remembered decades beforehand? I remember reading at least one work in which this was a key plot device. Nyttend (talk) 14:13, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think G&S worried about the fine details. After all, they wrote an entire work called "The Yeomen of the Guard" which was actually about The Yeoman Warders of the Tower, an (almost) entirely different body. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 14:27, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Trovatore, it can't be about his being single, because where's the "moral beauty" or "sense of duty" in rescuing someone from that? He strongly implies that it would be a sacrifice to marry him, but one that is ethically uplifting. Ornil (talk) 17:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The sacrifice would be she would have to wait until he's 88 years old. And she says she's willing to wait. So the guy must be some catch! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

At the time Frederic sings this, he still thinks he has already been released from his indentures, so there's no "waiting till 1940" implied at this time. But I think Ornil is being a little too "picky" for G&S exegesis. Frederic is in a bad way because he's been on a ship since he was a baby, with no girls or women around except Ruth, and all of a sudden he's exposed to Mabel and her "sisters". He phrases his desire for them as duty and sacrifice (on their part) because he thinks of everything in terms of duty (the full title is The Pirates of Penzance, or, the Slave of Duty). I really don't think it has anything to do with them elevating his social status. --Trovatore (talk) 20:29, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think he sees it as about social status, but about moral one. My take on it that he thinks marrying a respectable woman makes him redeemed morally, in the same way as I mentioned in the original post. --Ornil (talk) 03:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

More to the point, consider Mabel's answer to her sisters. She mentions that "he has strayed", and her love will help with his "peace of mind". I think it's clearly the case that she is rescuing him from a moral predicament, at least ostensibly. Of course her sisters suggest a different motive. But none of them say that Frederick is crazy for framing it in terms of duty - they all accept that as a valid thing for him to say. Of course everyone in this story leaves in an intentionally crazy upside-down world, and I think in it duty is hugely important for everyone, not just Frederick. Though pirates clearly care even more about poetry and Queen Victoria:). --Ornil (talk) 04:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, consider the stanzas of his plea. In the first one, he is being modest, suggesting that he's not worthy etc etc (O is there not one maiden breast/that does not feel the moral beauty/of making worldly interest/subordinate to sense of duty). When that doesn't work, in his next stanza, he gets a little mean (O is there not one maiden here/whose homely face and bad complexion/has caused all hope to disappear/of ever winning man's affection). --Trovatore (talk) 21:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Come on, that's not mean, that's just super-naive. That would be a totally plausible bargain, and it must have happened a lot too, it's just not something you could say aloud. But he has no way of knowing that in his circumstances. Ornil (talk) 03:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Hakaristi

Does the Finnish Army still use the Hakaristi symbol? 49.226.54.98 (talk) 11:00, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

According to Western use of the swastika in the early 20th_century#Finland the hakaristi (swastika) is still used by the Finnish air force and the Utti Jaeger Regiment, and still appears on Finnish medals. Yes, I was surprised too. --Antiquary (talk) 11:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not used in the roundel (as it was until the end of WW2), but it's used in certain air force flags, and in an attenuated form on the Finnish presidential flag)... -- AnonMoos (talk) 15:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Deaths/Punishments of Prophets/False Prophets, Apostles, Messengers, Oracles, Gods, Goddess, Demigods, Messiahs/False Messiahs…

Hello!

Does anyone know any stories similar to the death of the Pharoah III whose death was exemplified by God? Or punishments? Names with a short definition would be helpful, or only names would be fine.

Regards.

(Russell.mo (talk) 11:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC))

Could you be a little more specific? Who is "Pharoah III"? - Lindert (talk) 11:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The Book of Exodus does not state that the pharaoh dies, but only that his first-born son is killed during the tenth plague of Egypt (Exodus 12:29), if that is what the OP is referring to. WP:WHAAOE: Pharaohs in the Bible. --Xuxl (talk) 12:31, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I suspect "Pharoah III" would refer to Ramesses III, maybe confusing him with Ramesses II, the alleged pharaoh of the biblical exodus and one of the main characters in Ridley Scott's recent Exodus: Gods and Kings. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:54, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

@Stephan Schulz: Yes, I meant Ramesses II. Apologies. -- (Russell.mo (talk) 17:45, 11 January 2015 (UTC))

The latest version of the heavenly book does apparently, i.e. the Qur'an. I'm talking about the one who was mummified. I read in one wikipedia article where it was stated "Pharoah III", as a link, I thought that's what he is called. I can't recall his real name. -- (Russell.mo (talk) 06:39, 7 January 2015 (UTC))

With regard to stories of the sort suggested by this thread's heading, you might find the article Simon Magus of interest. Deor (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

This is what I'm writing peeps:

"Some of God’s descendants/incarnations became celestial during living their test of life after passing the first phase (when their time came) then continued with their second phase; some of their destiny was told to others before they were born and or to themselves after they were born, e.g., Jesus (Isa), Muhammad, Zoroaster, Oedipus, Isaac, Jacob, Esau, Samson, John the Baptist, Prometheus, Perseus, and some of their destiny was exemplified by God, e.g., Pharaoh (Fir’awn) and many more."

I have a rough idea of most of their story, and I'm assuming only one of them posses a death/punishment sentence i.e. mummification. I require names of people with death/punishments now as most of the embolden ones I have are about their fortune foretold before or after they were born, to themselves or to their heirs.

(Russell.mo (talk) 06:38, 7 January 2015 (UTC))

I'm not entirely sure what you are looking for - people that were bodily resurrected after dying? Would Lazarrus be an example? Or people to who are the subject of prophecies? Then take a look at List of oracular statements from Delphi. Croesus is a fine example. Basically all Pharaos were mummified - it was one of the defining parts of ancient Egypt's culture. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:20, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Well that's new to me; everyone's mummified!?!

I heard a story of a Pharoah who died because he tried to claim heaven on Earth, what he said he created to his followers. He died right before he tried to step on the door of the so called heaven he made on Earth, and this was his punishment by God for providing false belief to his followers, as no one can create Heaven but God... This is apparently in the Qur'an. I'm thinking now that this could be the reason why mummification started for claiming to be God... I'm looking for similar kind of stories (definitions) with names who were punished by God or died due to some kind of stupidity. -- (Russell.mo (talk) 12:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC))

Ancient Egyptians believed that the quality of life (or death?) in the afterlife depended on the preservation of the body, on the quality and preservation of symbolic grave goods, and on continued religious services. Thus, everybody tried to have their corpse preserved as well as possible, and the more power and influence one had, the better the mummification process. See Mummy and Ancient Egyptian burial customs. For your list, take a look at Loki from the Norse mythology. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:59, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• The false messiah Shabtai Tzvi was held in a birdcage by the Sultan until he converted to Islam. μηδείς (talk) 18:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

@Medeis: I've inserted him in other section long time ago... Thanks anyways. -- (Russell.mo (talk) 18:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC))

I'll have a read through peeps, thank you all. -- (Russell.mo (talk) 16:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC))

WW2 Eastern Front Morale

In the film The Great Escape, one of the Germans mentions that going to the Eastern Front is a reproachable fate, and that as a punishment soldiers were sent there. This doesn't wash with me because surely the Germans would want their soldiers to feel good about going to the Eastern Front in order to boost their morale. To what extent is this true? Thanks, 49.226.54.98 (talk) 11:12, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The soldiers weren't stupid: they knew the Western Front was relatively quiet, with most duties in occupied territories not being particularly dangerous (until the D-Day landing, that is) and living conditions quite comfortable. On the other hand, the Eastern front was the site of furious combat, often in very difficult climatic conditions (see Battle of Stalingrad, e.g.) --Xuxl (talk) 12:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you couldn't really put out an appeal for civilians to donate winter clothing only months after the campaign had started and then pretend that everything was going well. "Here the German population could get a first really clear picture that things had gone drastically wrong". A World at Arms: A Global History of World War II by Gerhard L. Weinberg (p. 294). Even after D-Day, it was preferable to be captured by the Western Allies than by the Soviets. Alansplodge (talk) 14:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The OP might be interested by the works of Sven Hassel. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 14:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

All the books of whom were ghost written by his wife, except for the first one. She had no first hand experience of fighting in a penal unit. In the book 'Monte Cassino', she even mentions an attack on the German positions by a Japanese regiment in the American army, brandishing samurai swords, which is completely ridiculous. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 09:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Aside from their own risk of being killed in action, the genocide was also quite out in the open on the Eastern front, unlike elsewhere where Jews and "undesirables" merely appeared to be deported to labor camps. This would have two negative effects on morale:

1) Those who felt that genocide was morally wrong would have lower morale for this reason.

2) Those who felt they would be treated brutally, in return, should they fall into the hands of their enemies, would have low morale for that reason, especially later on when it became quite clear they were losing and would eventually be forced to surrender. StuRat (talk) 15:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

As Alansplodge notes, falling into the hands of the Russians was far worse than falling into the hands of the Western Allies. As the war was ending, large numbers of Germans fled from the Red Army to the West; look at the Niall Ferguson quote in the German prisoners of war in the Soviet Union article. They presumably weren't aware that Article 58 was used to punish Soviet soldiers who escaped and returned to Soviet lines, but it was still well known that one would not be treated well as a prisoner of the USSR. Nyttend (talk) 23:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Because the Germans' behavior on the Eastern Front was atrocious. In France or Belgium, they did not burn thousands of villages with all their inhabitants alive, like they did in Belarus and Russia. The film Come and See gives some idea of what was going on there. Besides, the Soviet POWs were treated were differently from the westerners. They were sent for extermination to Auschwitz, Buchenwald, etc. rather than to the stalag lufts (as Stalin did not care to ratify the Geneva Conventions). Of course the Soviet soldiers were enormously bent on revenge. --Ghirla^-трёп- 09:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Alteration of winter solstice content.

I recently visited your site to gather information about winter solstice practices documented from earliest human experience, i noticed that the information has changed and some information completely deleted, the particular aspect in question is the ancient greek festival under the the former heading of lanaea, is there some page where this information is still stored or has it been deleted completely and if so, why? I would have thought any and all aspects of human experience that teach, guide and enlighten those who wish to learn of ancient practices be granted such information, but to alter/delete any information would be seen as showing a bias against the areas of experience said information is pertinant too, thus wikipedia fails to provide the truth of the content it allows to be accessed by visitors to its website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.202.69 (talk) 13:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not delete old versions of articles, except in rare cases, e.g. if it includes highly offensive or libellous material. You can still view an old revision of an article by clicking on the "View History" tab at the top of the page. When editors make changes to an article, sometimes they remove material. There are many reasons for this (e.g. because the material is unverifiable or not relevant), but fundamentally, the reason is that the editors thought that removing it would improve the article. If you disagree with a change to an article, you can edit the page yourself, in order to improve it, but make sure that you follow Wikipedia's policies for editing. You can also leave a comment at the article's "Talk" page (click the "Talk"-tab). - Lindert (talk) 13:39, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The information was removed by editor:Crumpled Fire just over a year ago with the explanation that the article is about the solstice, not about related festivals. Here is the information removed:

Influenced by the Ancient Greek Lenaia festival, Brumalia was an ancient Roman solstice festival honoring Bacchus, generally held for a month and ending December 25. The festival included drinking and merriment. The name is derived from the Latin word bruma, meaning "shortest day" or "winter solstice". The festivities almost always occurred on the night of December 24.

You can find fuller accounts at the articles Brumalia and Lenaia. Dbfirs 13:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)