Humanities desk
< May 11	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 13 >

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

May 12[edit]

Ravaillac and Damiens[edit]

Please, can you help me to find info about their descendants, from their execution until the end of XIX century? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.207.202.102 (talk) 10:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ravaillac was apparently unmarried, having previously applied to join various religious orders. Damiens' wife and daughter are not named in any source that I could find. Alansplodge (talk) 17:03, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the infobox in the Damiens article it says his wife's name was Elizabeth Molerienne. Abductive (reasoning) 02:22, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If either had any descendants, I doubt they would have bragged about being related to a regicide. It would have been something extremely shameful and kept well hidden. Xuxl (talk) 17:02, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Inca plant dispersal success story[edit]

A while ago I was reading about a plant used by the Incas which the Spanish tried to exterminate. They appeared to succeed, but in modern times surviving plants were found in a remote location far outside the plant's native range, the Inca practice of dispersing 'backups' of important crops to all corners of the empire to ensure their survival having succeeded. I can't remember what plant it was! Anyone know? There are many 'lost crops of the Incas' the Spanish forbade cultivating, which are now being recultivated, but this one was thought to have been driven extinct, until survivals were rediscovered. Americanplantquestion (talk) 19:52, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I heard a version of the story regarding Amaranthus caudatus, but it was in formerly Aztec areas. It is mentioned in the article. Abductive (reasoning) 21:23, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean to say formerly Inca? Aztec Huaútli is A. cruentus or A. hypochondriacus , Inca Kiwicha is A. caudatus.[1] Britannia says Chia seeds also banned. fiveby(zero) 00:59, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Look in the History section of the Amaranthus caudatus article. Abductive (reasoning) 03:41, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's wrong, you had the right species, the article has the Aztec story with the Inca species. The cited sources: Lost crops of the Incas The most important Andean species is Ainmanthus caudatus. and Three species of grain amaranth have large seedheads and produce light-colored seeds with good taste and milling characteristics. Two of these species-A. cruentus and A. hypochondriacus-are indigenous to Mexico and Central America and are grown in the United States. The third species, A. caudatus, thrives in the South American Andes but does not grow well in the US. JSTOR 1309789 fiveby(zero) 05:31, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've doubted the story since I first heard it. Why would the Spaniards accept the potato, maize, beans, tobacco, and chili peppers, and ban Amaranthus? The fact that the Wikipedia articles are mixed up and the claim from Britannia about chia isn't in the Wikipedia article on chia seeds is worrisome. Abductive (reasoning) 07:32, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kiple, Kenneth F., ed. (2000). "Amaranth". The Cambridge World History Of Food. and Sauer, Jonathan Deininger (November 1950). "The Grain Amaranths: A Survey of Their History and Classification". Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden: 561–632. JSTOR 2394403. look like good sources here. That there was what the Spaniards would consider idolatry and a parody of holy communion in in mesoamerica, idols of zoale or semilla de bledo consumed and sometimes involving human sacrifice looks well documented, but in the Andes maize replaced amaranth for ceremonial use. That they considered native crops inferior and replaced with those of the old world where the could, that they would go to great lengths to stamp out idolatry where the could, but as Sauer puts it: After the Conquest, ceremonial use of zoale was undoubtedly gradually suppressed by the church in its battle against heathenism and idolatry. Stubborn resistance by at least a few of the Indians is revealed by the writings of two 17th century priests. But how this all translates into "banning" or "prohibiting" cultivation of a crop i haven't found, and it's clear that cultivation persisted in rural areas.

In promoting something as a "superfood" it might be advantageous to romanticize or exaggerate the history, so "lost" crops, secret backups, almost exterminated, etc. fiveby(zero) 15:09, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

'Tis so. I suspect the real story is something like this; Spaniards put an end to highland peasants being forced to tithe crops to the lowland temples, and the peasants stopped growing it as much because the other crops were easier for them. Abductive (reasoning) 18:39, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Still looking for a species which better fits the story tho, as the OP said there are many "lost crops of the Incas" and we are looking for one almost extinct, but no luck. Maybe Bromus mango or Solanum hygrothermicum fiveby(zero) 18:52, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently bromus mango is extinct, but has had some "rediscoveries" over the years that proved to be unfounded? Scholz, Hildemar; Mos, Uwe (September 1994). "Status and short history of the extinct cultivated cereal Bromus mango E. Desv. — and the origin of Bromus secalinus L." Flora. but can only see the abstract.

Solanum hygrothermicum is only partially accepted, with the source Ochoa, C. (March 1984). "Solanum hygrothermicum, New Potato Species Cultivated in the Lowlands of Peru". Economic Botany. JSTOR 4254582. fiveby(zero) 19:37, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've had Bromus mango on my to-do list since 2021 when I created a small batch of Bromus stubs. But I've been stymied by it not being listed on the IUCN Redlist at all. As for Solanum hygrothermicum, I redirected it to Potato back in 2021 because WP:Wikiproject Plants follows Plants of the World Online for flowering plants, and they have it listed a synonym. Abductive (reasoning) 06:17, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the 1997 list, which must have been a time when thought rediscovered? Would this be an elvis taxon or is that only used for the fossil record? fiveby(zero) 18:39, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Westminster Abbey[edit]

I'm just wondering when it was originally built Westminster Abbey would have been a Catholic Church. How did it survive the Dissolution of the Monasteries and the Reformation. Our article on the abbey states that Henry VIII spared it by granting it cathedral status, but why, and how did it become an abbey again? Presumably, this has something to do with its status as the Coronation Church and about the time it was granted "royal peculiar" status? --Andrew 22:01, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the CofE churches, abbeys and cathedrals in England* were originally built prior to the reformation. Therefore they would have been under the control of Rome at first. A tiny number were prior to the Synod of Whitby and would therefore originally have been Celtic, not Roman, but they were rebuilt after the Conquest in 1066. Following the Reformation ordinary churches became Anglican churches (big simplification here, this ignores the vicissitudes of Henry VIII and his daughter Mary). The cathedrals were retained as cathedrals, but those that were run by monks were reformed into secular cathedrals under a Dean and Chapter. Many abbeys were purely monastic but Westminster was granted the status (not actuality, there was never a bishop of Westminster) of a cathedral to preserve it from the Dissolution. It became a Royal Peculiar with a Dean and Chapter, but instead of a bishop it was under the direct control of the Crown. All cathedrals suffered under the Puritans who didn't accept bishops (again a gross simplification), but retained their status post-Restoration. That's around 1500 years of religious history reduced to one paragraph!

*Without checking I cannot be sure about Scotland and Wales. [oops sorry, signature overlooked] Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:12, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the OP is confused because the building we still call “Westminster Abby” isn’t actually an abby any more. There is no abbot, no monks etc. Blueboar (talk) 23:42, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, names tend to stick. The city of Newcastle, for example, is named for a castle built in 1080. Former Roman metropoli often still have evolved forms of their original names. Founded in the 9th century BCE, Carthage, from Punic qrt-ḥdšt and now locally called Qarṭāj, meant "New city". I wonder what is the oldest inhabited place in the world whose name still incorporates an element meaning "new"? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.199.210.77 (talk) 07:48, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of "abbey churches" which survived the Dissolution but continued in other roles. Sometimes, the townspeople clubbed together and bought back the church building of the abbey for use as an outsized parish church; an example is Tewkesbury Abbey. In the case of Waltham Abbey Church, they could only afford the back end of the nave, the rest was demolished. When the Anglican dioceses were reformed in the 19th century, some of these old abbey churches became new cathedrals, St Albans Abbey for example.

In the case of Westminster, Henry wasn't going to let it go; it was the place where he hoped his descendants would be crowned (which happened) and where he hoped to be buried with his predecessors (which did not - he ended up under the floor at Windsor and Nelson eventually got his sarcophagus). Alansplodge (talk) 12:24, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the Diocese of Westminster (Church of England) existed briefly, and Thomas Thirlby was apparently the bishop then. According to "Discovering Cathedrals" by David Pepin, all seven cathedrals of the Scottish Episcopal Church are 19th-century buildings, while the "cathedrals of former times" are now mainly picturesque ruins or Presbyterian parish churches... AnonMoos (talk) 12:11, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Presbyterian Church of Scotland took over all the Catholic establishments in Scotland, and not having any bishops, had no need of cathedrals. St Giles' Cathedral for example became a parish church, but it was partitioned with other parts being used as a courthouse and prison. Alansplodge (talk) 12:29, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, at least in some countries, the term "cathedral" is losing its meaning as being the kathédra (seat) of a bishop, and is used for any large and impressive church building. See e.g. the Presbyterian Cathedral of Rio de Janeiro. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:07, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Martin of Sheffield, on your first sentence — I believe that's wrong. Vast numbers of them were, of course, but now that it's been almost 500 years since the English Reformation, (1) many of them have been destroyed by nature or development or abandonment, (2) the rise of Dissenting movements prompted the construction of vast numbers of Dissenting chapels, (3) Catholic Emancipation permitted the construction of numerous new Catholic churches, and (4) significant population growth in the later 19th and early 20th centuries, before irreligion became popular, prompted extensive construction of new churches for the numerous new worshippers. [The CoE even had to create a number of new dioceses.] Also, on a lesser scale, (5) in urban centres, probably a decent number were built after unwelcome assistance with demolition work in the early 1940s. Nyttend (talk) 22:14, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyttend: – That's a good point which I accept. I could go chasing down a rabbit warren with the legal distinction between a church and a chapel, but it's far more honest to say that I was thinking just of the CofE in this context. I've added the qualification to my original posting. In my defence I did state "originally built" since every church I've ever visited has been "improved" or "modified" over the years! Martin of Sheffield (talk) 07:34, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]