Humanities desk
< November 20	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 22 >

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.

November 21[edit]

Elective Monarchy to Hereditary Monarchy[edit]

It seems like all the monarchies of Europe were at one point ceremonially elective (ex. Kings of the Anglo-Saxons had to be elect and early Kings of France had to crown their children to ensure their succession) but then they became hereditary. How come the Holy Roman Empire was never fully able to transit into a hereditary monarchy? The title remained in the Habsburg family for hundreds of years.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 05:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One of the possibly contributing factors, and this is just speculation on my part, was the lack of an identifiable capital city. England had London, and France had Paris, and all of the other nominal "cities" in those nations were quite smaller. The King of those countries, who resided in the largest city, and thus controlled it, was clearly the most important figure of it. The nominal capitals of the HRE were probably Aachen or Frankfurt, but none of these served as the seat of government; the Emperor usually resided in whatever his familial homeland was, or perhaps a nearby free city or bishopric. The Habsburgs made their seat Vienna, but that was merely because of it being the most important city in the Habsburg hereditary lands. The assembly of nobles, the Reichstag, tended to meet just about anywhere. What this means is that the Emperor was never able to consolidate power in any one location, to "call his nobles" to his court, if you will. The English nobility and French nobility spent a sizable amount of time in London and Paris respectively, often at the courts of the King. In the HRE, since there was no capital, they pretty much spent most of their time in their own fiefs, which is why they had so much more control over those lands, and why the nobility in the HRE tended to become more powerful over time rather than less, as was happening in France and England. Since the HRE nobility tended to stay home, those individual fiefs became semi-autonomous from the Empire itself. This lack of centralization meant that it was in the interests of the nobility to keep the monarchy elective; to prevent the sort of centralization of power that occured in Paris and London. --Jayron32 06:02, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another possible reason for the decentralized nature of the HRE was the uniquely German institution of the Stem duchy which did not exist in other parts of Europe. These duchies were essentially the settled Germanic tribes that occupied the land that made up the HRE. These stem duchies generally had the right to manage their own affairs independently of the monarch; that tradition likely influenced the sort of arrangement that led to the uniquely elective nature of the HRE and functional independence of its member states. --Jayron32 06:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Kings of Poland were elective, and Poland had a capital. It just became a tradition. But then, the nobility of Poland were notorious for ther me-firstism. The Sejm required unanimity, not just a majority, or even a super-majority. Corvus cornix_talk 20:36, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Irish always elected their kings.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The trope of a king acclaimed by the "people" is a common element in the founding myth of many peoples, always looked back upon as a sample of pristine tradition in archaic times: take the convention with a grain of salt and judge the uses to which it is being put in the contexts in which it turns up. "Why" didn't the Roman Empire ever fully establish inheritability either? Whose expectations are being expressed in such a question?--Wetman (talk) 17:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do most people admire their boyfriend/girlfriend?[edit]

By admiration, I mean admiration for a person's personality, talent, or intelligence--in the same way that one would admire a hero, for example. Admiration for a person's appearance doesn't count.

Does this vary across gender? Is one sex more likely to choose mates who are "better" than themselves?

Of course I have a lot of anecdotal evidence, but I want to know if any academic studies have been done on this. --140.180.14.145 (talk) 09:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there's some evidence people may initially have difficult seeing their partners faults as the parts of the brain responsible are semi shut down, I'm having trouble finding a good source but see [1], [2], [3] which discuss this somewhat. If your up to it, you can try reading the original article [4]. This doesn't mean they admire their personality, talent or intelligent, in fact my impression is the ability to critically analyse someone is affected so even though you don't see their flaws so well you may not really see what makes them good either. In any case, this doesn't tend to last more then 2 years in to a relationship Nil Einne (talk) 16:13, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Define admiration, if you would. Then think, "how many people actually admire anyone or anything", in the sense that you have just defined. My guess is, the majority will just shrug their shoulders (I would). Even if a particular culture has a concept of "admiration", and it does not discourage speaking about it in public, not everyone there actually practices it, and some will just refuse to talk about it. And, of course, nothing beats mother nature: emotional life changes with hormone level, there's no way around it. East of Borschov 16:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the beginning of a romantic relationship men and women tend to view their loved one through a pretty pair of rose-tinted glasses, hence the term Love is blind. As time passes, familiarity sets in, then boredom and annoyance. What once attracted instead becomes an irritant, and a sexual turn-off.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

European Union legislation: How much is codecision, how much is consultation?[edit]

Title asks the question. What fields or what particular supranational subjects are prone to the EU's consultation procedure, and which are handled through the codecision procedure? These seem to shift bit by bit with each treaty, with more and more becoming codecision. Is there an available chart online?

Thank you much in advance! 88.90.16.74 (talk) 13:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google [[5]] is your friend[[6]]. Codecisions involve both parliament and the council agreeing on an action; consultation (used in agriculture, taxation, competition law) is when a proposal from the commission reaches the council and the latter then consults parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Assent, the third type of decision (not mentioned in the OP) is where the Council has to obtain parliament’s assent before certain decisions are taken. It is a yea/nay vote, with no amendments allowed.DOR (HK) (talk) 08:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Classic autobiographies[edit]

What classic autobiographies or memoirs are worth reading? For example I enjoyed reading the first part of Maxim Gorky's autobiography, and will read the other parts when I can get them. I also enjoyed The Autobiography Of Benvenuto Cellini. Thanks. 92.28.244.180 (talk) 17:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Father and Son by Edmund Gosse is an absolute gem of a book. Interesting, funny, sad, and beautifully written. DuncanHill (talk) 17:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Usama ibn Munqidh wrote a book that is sometimes called "memoirs". Paul Cobb's recent translation (titled "The Book of Contemplation") is a good read. If you like Cellini you might also like him (although Usama lived several centuries before Cellini). I also enjoyed Goodbye to All That by Robert Graves. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A few more - both Boy and Going Solo by Roald Dahl are worth reading. The Diary of a Country Parson by James Woodforde is fascinating and moving, Paupers and Pig Killers by William Holland also, and those two make a good pair - two very different men in the same occupation at about the same time. Anthony Blond's Jew Made in England is fun. DuncanHill (talk) 23:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And of course. Seven Pillars of Wisdom by T.E. Lawrence. DuncanHill (talk) 00:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Education of Henry Adams; Personal Memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant. —Kevin Myers 03:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And an older but memorable one: The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin. PhGustaf (talk) 03:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a classic yet, though I suspect it may become one Autobiography of Mark Twain, published recently in full for the first time: see here. Definitely on my reading list. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good-Bye to All That is a very good read. P. S. Burton (talk) 17:42, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In French, the Mémoires d'Outre-Tombe by François-René de Chateaubriand, the memoirs of the Duc de Saint-Simon, and those of Giacomo Casanova (Histoire de ma vie) are all classics. The Words by Jean-Paul Sartre and Memoirs of a Dutiful Daughter by Simone de Beauvoir are popular modern examples in the genre. --Xuxl (talk) 18:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Pulitzer-winning Angela's Ashes is fantastic, easily Frank McCourt's best work. The film version stuck remarkably close to the source material if you'd prefer to experience it that way (and anything with Robert Carlyle in is worth watching). The followups, 'Tis, and Teacher Man, don't really capture the imagination the same way, though. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 19:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Fortunate Life was written by Bert Facey, someone nobody outside his family had ever heard of until then. He became an instant celebrity in 1981 at the age of 87, he died the following year, and his book has been considered a timeless classic since Day 1 of publication. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Christian Theology, why do we have hiccups?[edit]

It seems pretty obvious that the biological hiccup serves no useful purpose, but is just an inconvenience. It is a minor evolutionary hiccup, if you will. But that explanation certainly won't mesh with a Creator who designs everything. So, if Humans are designed, then what design requirement does the occasional hiccup serve? In other words: what is the theological significance of the hiccup? 84.153.230.45 (talk) 17:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(In other words, when Christian philosophers have turned their attention to the hiccup, what have they concluded?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.153.230.45 (talk) 17:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about Christian theology, it's about creationism. Christians are not required to be creationists, and creationists are not necessarily Christians. But note that if not being able to explain everything invalidated belief systems, humans wouldn't have any belief systems at all, because none of ours are complete in the logical sense (except for ones that are self-contradictory). Paul (Stansifer) 19:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Christians are not required to be creationists" - if only they reject the Creed (I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth ... ). It's a minority (Free Christians etc.). East of Borschov 20:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, not all Christians place such importance in the Nicene Creed. And you must surely recognize that the vagueness of the word "creator" permits considerable leeway. See theistic evolution. The vast majority of Catholics/Anglicans/mainline Protestants are not creationists in the strict, young-earth sense of the word, if only because the position has become tarnished by its association with crazy tambourine-shaking Evangelical types. Even in places like the United States, where Evangelicalism is epidemic, a slim majority of the total Christian population accept the fact of evolution, albeit without recognizing its full philosophical implications. As for places like Africa and the Caribbean, I couldn't say. The situation is probably worse there. LANTZY ^TALK 21:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christians are not required to be creationists in the sense of ignoring scientific explanations. For example, the Catholic Church says of reading the Bible:

110 In order to discover the sacred authors' intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. "For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression."76

For gory details, see here. Oh, and if you were interested in a pretty detailed exegesis of what the Vatican's official position is on the Nicene Creed, it's detailed in the Catechism. For example, here is the section in the word 'creator' in the line 'creator of heaven and earth'! So, there are certainly Christians who take the Nicene Creed seriously, and yet have no truck with Creationist 'science'. 86.164.26.153 (talk) 23:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(EC)Paul wrote (2 Corinthians 12:7-10 KJV) about some unspecified weakness or affliction which acted as a "thorn in the flesh" to keep him humble. Hiccups, bad vision, deafness, or acne, like epilepsy, might be said by some religious philosopher to serve such a function. (added) Even Christians who are creationists might endorse this explanation.Edison (talk) 19:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per Edison. These things are sent to try us. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did try to do some research, but I was not able to find any evidence that anyone writing in the field of intelligent design or creation science has addressed the question of the causes of hiccups. In response to the sub-question, many Christians believe that the two creation stories in the beginning of Genesis should be read as metaphoric or mythic truth, and not as a literally accurate version of the origin of life on earth. I could find a source for that if you like, but it really is common knowledge. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given a reasonably elastic and paradoxical (ahem, I mean "mysterious") set of foundational beliefs, only a small investment of imagination is required to reconcile any given phenomenon with those beliefs. One strategy is to treat the universe like a Rube Goldberg machine, in which every localized evil is dismissed as part of a concatenation of events whose telos is good. If that's too much work, say "God works in mysterious ways", threaten the curious with hellfire, and call it a day. But religious people, like all humans, love to explain. From the perspective of religious authorities, the difficult part is not how to create just-so stories, but how to keep them from proliferating too quickly, and in undesirable directions. The power of theodicy is that it comes as naturally to a child as to a scholar, and is scalable from the most trivial to the most earth-shattering questions. Why do fireflies light up? So we can hunt them at night! Why did God cause the Holocaust? Because he loves the Jews! LANTZY ^TALK 21:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Following the Original Sin man became imperfect, and genetic mutations began to occur. A hiccup is, like you say, an "inconvenience" with which we would surely not have to deal if Adam had not sinned. schyler (talk) 03:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ok sorry, this might be a stupid question but, would we exist if Adam had not sinned ? 200.144.37.3 (talk) 10:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to some creationists, no. It was needed for him to take a fancy in the pleasures of the flesh with Eve. :-)

According to me, Adam never was of course. --Lgriot (talk) 11:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you would like to reexamine your thesis: "It seems pretty obvious that the biological hiccup serves no useful purpose". I, myself, suffer from a narrow esopahgus and find hiccups are useful in helping free stuck food. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 00:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heresy trials in Scandinavia[edit]

The trial against Botulf Botulfsson seem to be the only heresy trial ending in an execution in Sweden, but what about the other Scandinavian countries? Does anyone know about any heresy trial in Denmark or Norway? Thanks--Aciram (talk) 19:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our page on the Stockholm Bloodbath of 1520 details the trial (if such kangaroo court proceedings deserve the name) and execution of 82 people, ostensibly for heresy. Their real crime appears to have been opposition to Christian II of Denmark's invasion of Sweden. Antiquary (talk) 19:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know about that occasion, but as you say; the real reason was not heresy, but politics. That's why the Botulf-case are pointed out as Sweden's only heresy trial, I believe. The trial against Eric Clauesson is also dubious. I feel secure in my knowledge about Sweden in particular, but I am not that informed about Denmark and Norway. What I search for are cases in Denmark and Norway. Where there any? --Aciram (talk) 20:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All "heresy" is politics.--Wetman (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]