Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 April 23

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.

April 23

durability of book coverings

Hi, I'm asking what appears to be a miscellaneous question here because humanities people, I suspect, buy the most books, and hence would have the best idea about how to preserve them.

Recently I bought some adhesive book covering, called "bookguard 80" (matt), and I would like to know if anyone has used it over a long time, and if so, how durable is it? I used to use some cheap and nasty stuff, and whilst reading a long novel (Middlemarch) it developed a long crease on the front cover, and and air bubble started forming under it. I'm curious to know if the same thing is going to happen to my new one. If not, it gives the best finish, and I'd recommend it (in Australia, you can get it from Raeco - sorry if that looks like advertising, but it's just a recommendation if it turns out to be durable). The other one I have is called "Cover it" by Nylex, which produces a less desirable finish, but in case the bookguard 80 turns out to be flimsy, can anyone tell me of their experience with Coverit?

Please also feel free to share any other tips on book preservation here. Regards, 203.221.126.94 (talk) 00:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

If you have books that you love, don't cover them with anything adhesive! The solvent in the adhesive will gradually dry out , leaving either a powdery residue, or stains on your book cover, or both. The best thing I have found is a thin sheet of mylar, which is transparent and will fold around the book and protect it, which I fasten only to itself with adhesive tape. No tape on the book! Plain old-fashioned acid-free brown paper is also good, but does not look so nice. Another tip on book preservation: do not take paperbacks into a sauna. If it is hot enough, it will melt the glue in the spine. SaundersW (talk) 07:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I recently read of a great way to cover books, apparently wallpaper is good because it's more appealing to look at, and it's designed to be tough. Also most stores will give you the old wallpaper sample books free when they're done with them. Those have to be better looking than brown paper. SunshineStateOfMind (talk) 14:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I used this for schoolbooks and it was remarkably durably and you could see which book was which at a glance.hotclaws 07:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

At one time I used magazine pages to protect history texts from heavy use. Wrapping patriarchal documents in pop images that carried their own time stamp suits my sense of quirk. Julia Rossi (talk) 23:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Animated map of the progression of human societies

Please direct me to where I can find either an animated map showing the societies of the world come into existence, expand and end. Any help toward this end would be obliged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexnye (talk • contribs) 01:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you will find such a thing. Historically, most human "societies" were not precisely defined or delineated, either temporally or geographically, and there is also a lot of intermingling going on. You might like to find a copy of the Times Atlas of World History or something similar, which provides a very good visual history of the way humanity spread and developed.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I was going to draw one, but never got around to it. Sorry for being so lazy. HS7 (talk) 20:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Thank you. Edit: I actually found just such a program when looking through searches and such for "Atlas of World History". For those others who are interested: http://www.atlasofworldhistory.com/. —69.229.127.149 (talk) 22:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

A more modern European version can be found here: [1]. The images are free to view, but higher resolution pictures would have to be purchased. Steewi (talk) 05:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

can somebody help me find this piece of music

Here is another question that people might think belongs elsewhere, and I nearly decided to put it on the entertainment desk, but it's really about classical music, and I think the knowledge base for that is here.

I was watching the West Wing (a rental copy, thanks to StuRat for the advice) and in season 1, there is an episode called "Take this Sabbath Day." In one scene, Toby Ziegler is in the "temple," which I assume means synagogue, and someone is singing a piece of classical music. Does anyone know what the name of this piece is? I'd really like to track it down, since it was rather beautiful. I've tried googling, but to no avail. Also on a side note, is "temple" just another word for synagogue, or have I got something wrong here? thanks in advance. 203.221.126.88 (talk) 02:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

"Synagogues" are a specific subset of the category "temples". All synagogues are temples, not all temples are synagogues. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 02:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, captain. But does this apply specifically in Judaism? Is a synagogue the only type of Jewish temple? As for the music, it's called Hashkiveinu. A bit more googling was all it took. silly me. It goes to show, google is always your second best friend on the net, after wikipedia.:) 203.221.126.88 (talk) 03:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Correction: Not all synagogues are "temples." Only Reform Jews call their synagogues "temples." Conservative and Orthodox Jews in America are more likely to use the word shul as a synonym for "synagogue." -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Is "someone" a tenor? A good guess would be Kol Nidrei. --Wetman (talk) 05:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't a Jew say "in/at temple", "go to temple" etc., rather than "in the temple", "go to the temple"? I think the word is used differently (akin to "school") when referring to synagogues, as opposed to temples in general. Deiz talk 08:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The Internet Movie Database, repository of unbelieveable quantities of movie and TV trivia, lists "Hashkiveinu, Arranged by Max Helfman" on the soundtrack for this episode [2]. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You might also like this site. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I think what the Captain means above is that a temple is a generic word for a place of worship, hence all synagogues are temples. However, as Mwalcoff points out, the word synagogue is much more common in Judaism, so if a Jewish person refers to a temple you may be pretty sure that they are part of US Reform Judaism. Daniel (‽) 17:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that's right. AIUI, for most Orthodox and Conservative Jews, the word temple can refer only to the destroyed Temple in Jerusalem. Many would find the use of temple to refer to the synagogue distasteful. -- BPMullins | Talk 05:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

hallo people, why the sudden change of topic? or should i say context? the poor fellow ended up not knowing the name of the song!! captain i guess you were out of line when you shifted the discussion from music to synagogues.41.220.120.202 (talk) 10:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)davis

'Cause he asked about synagogues? Read the last part of his question. Plus he found the answer to his own question through Google. — Matt Eason ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 13:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Vietnam War

Could someone better explain this sentence from the Vietnam War article:

"This flew in the face of the long historical antipathy between the two nations, of which the U.S. seems to have been completely ignorant."

I've never really understood the phrase "flew in the face of..." So, could someone explain what is meant here? And possibly make it clearer in the article if you think that's necessary as well. Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 05:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

To "fly in the face of" something means to defy or contradict something, especially a fact, belief, or state of affairs. In this case, the notion of Vietnamese subservience to China would seem to contradict the longstanding enmity between the two countries, and thereby fly in the face of historical wisdom. 129.174.176.3 (talk) 06:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Something can fly in the face of historical wisdom, but it can't fly in the face of a state of affairs. I call this a clumsy use of the idiom, at best, and I'm going to give that article my best massage right now. --Milkbreath (talk) 11:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, both of you! Dismas|^(talk) 20:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Lenin and Marx

Why did Lenin take such a radical departure from the other main currents of Marxist thought in Europe before the First World War? I am thinking here of the development of Marxist theory rather than the political struggles between the Bolshevik and Menshevik factions of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party itself. Thank you. Yermelov (talk) 07:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It begins, Yermelov, in the 1890s, by which time it was obvious that history was not going to follow the lines predicted by Karl Marx. Capitalism was not impoverishing the working-class; just the reverse. The proletariat was growing richer, not poorer, and thus had much more to lose than 'their chains.' In Germany, home of the the largest Marxist party in the world, there were those like Eduard Bernstein who drew the obvious conclusions: that further economic progress would bring socialism of its own accord, without any need for revolution. Capitalism, in other words, was socialising itself. Socialism would thus be attained by evolution, not revolution.

These ideas were taken up in Russia by the likes of S. Prokopovich and E. Kuskova, who put them forward in a pamphlet, which Lenin's sister, Anna, described as the Credo. In this it was argued that the political struggle was a distraction, and the Russian Social Democrat and Labour Party should thus place its greatest emphasis on the economic struggle; the struggle, that is, with employers for the improvement in pay and conditions.

For Lenin these Economists were proposing the worst form of heresy. He insisted on the primacy of the political struggle. But, in support of this position, he looked not to western Marxism but rather into the Russian past, to the likes of Mikhail Bakunin, who argued that people were tyrannised in the first place not by economic systems but by the state and the church. He was effectively turning classical Marxism on its head: for economics, in the Leninist scheme, no longer had primacy. More than that, he began to focus ever more on the corollary of this argument, another reversal of Marxism: that the emancipation of the workers would never be accomplished by the workers themselves. He was now on the high road to Bolshevism, a doctrine that was to owe virtually nothing to Marx, and much to the traditional forms of Russian conspiratorial and nihilist politics. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

My most sincere thanks, Clio. Please have this. Yermelov (talk) 05:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The Order of Lenin! For me? How wonderful! What next-the Stalin Prize? Thank you, Yermelov! Clio the Muse (talk) 22:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yao De-Fen worlds tallest woman

Looking for updates on this lady!! Did she have the operation scheduled for 2007 and how is she now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.23.229.172 (talk) 08:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't know, but I have tagged the Yao Defen article for update.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Impossible question documentary art world society infiltrator scam artist SOLVED by Pharos

I just remembered that I once had seen an old documentary about some guy who was a society poser - I think he might have known Picasso and other artists in the 50s or 60s or 70s. Pretending to be wealthy. Maybe becoming wealthy. I remember there were unbuttoned shirts and gold chains in the film perhaps dating it, and also that the locations seemed to be e.g. Crete or Greece or Ibiza etc. Gosh, that's all I remember. I feel like he scamed a bunch of wealthy people. Like something on "City Confidential" on A&E but older and more arty in a sleezy kind of way. Any ideas? Saudade7 08:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Elmyr de Hory in F for Fake?--Pharos (talk) 08:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Well that didn't take long! You are astonishing Pharos !!! Saudade7 08:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it didn't hurt that this particular documentary was directed by Orson Welles! Also, by coincidence, that film has rather been on my mind for the last week or so (I really do think it was pretty excellent).--Pharos (talk) 23:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Forms of address in 16th century Venice

It's 1582. How does one venetian nobleman address another, or a lady? - what are the polite and casual terms one may use? Also, while I'm here, can anyone point me to a list of the servants that would have been employed in a venetian villa or palace at that time?

Thanks - hope these aren't impudent questions Adambrowne666 (talk) 08:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

(Only if you were Baldrick.) Julia Rossi (talk) 09:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

What I mean is, hope they're not lazy questions - I've got into the habit of asking you guys before doing the hard work of research. Maybe someone could point me to helpful literature on the subject? Adambrowne666 (talk) 21:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, the last time I was talking to a Venetian nobleman in Venice, I made a joke, which amused him, of saying sciavo vostro, instead of its shortened, modern, generally used form ciao. According to the article, probably neither would have been out of place back then, though the long form was doubtless more polite.John Z (talk) 01:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You might be interested in looking at Florio's Worlde of Wordes, an Italian-English dictionary from near that time - searchable online somewhere. The Venetian dialect would be slightly different, but not greatly. Steewi (talk) 06:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that's great, both of you - the Worlde of Wordes is an excellent resource too. Actually, what I meant by terms of address was what they call each other - Senor? Sirrah? Master? Lord? - that kinda thing. Adambrowne666 (talk) 03:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair discrimination

If I discriminate a person (who e.g. smells), am I infringing his right (of choosing his personality) or do I have a similar right (of having a personality that discriminates people like him)? 217.168.3.246 (talk) 09:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You're free to dislike people who smell, or have another quality you find distasteful privately, but if they are not "breaking the rules" and your preference negatively impacts their ability to work or enjoy other rights and freedoms, then you are discriminating against them. "Smell" and "personality" (I don't necessarily agree the former is a subset of the latter) are quite hard ones to quantify, but consider your example with a dislike for those of another ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation. Go nuts in private, but good luck trying it on in the workplace. The more subjective the issue, the harder to argue a case for or against, hence the reason lawyers live in mansions and we live in apartments. Deiz talk 10:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

But it is important to mention some people can't help it. There are disorders like Trimethylaminuria that cause people to smell, no matter what they do. And some people are sensitive or even allergic to thescented products that most of us rely on to smell "nice." SunshineStateOfMind (talk) 14:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Smell can be dependable of personality. Anyway, it is just an example. I want to know where to draw the line between discrimination against other races on one hand, and disliking people who are fat, are ugly or don't take a bath is legit on the other. 217.168.3.246 (talk) 15:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

What about if they smell to you because they eat a food that is widely eaten in their culture but not in yours? 79.66.99.37 (talk) 16:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Dislike is an emotion - discrimination is a behaviour (although the latter word was not always used the way it is now). You're free to dislike anyone you want, including fat/thin/smelly/black/white/yellow/lazy/stupid/smug/gay/straight or any other kind of people, although you may miss out on some rewarding friendships and enjoyable experiences by dismissing people in such a cursory way. And they are free to dislike you for any one of those reasons, or many others. Depending where you live, however, the law may prevent you discriminating against people you don't like on particular grounds, such as race, sexual preference or disability. This means you cannot, for example, abuse or harass them, or refuse them goods, services or employment, simply because you have decided to dislike them.

There's no legality involved in liking; no "right" to like or be liked, and no penalty for not doing so. But bear in mind that just as you are assessing them, they are assessing you; and some people find judgementalism profoundly unlikeable. Being on the receiving end of discrimination can be a bewildering and hurtful experience. Unless people are prepared to accept it themselves, why dish it out to others? Karenjc 18:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The other side of the coin is that if a person's odour is very offensive to others, and particularly if they're not aware of it, then you might have almost a duty to let them know. I don't see the anti-discrimination laws requiring anyone to have to put up with nauseating smells in their workplace. It becomes an occupational health and safety issue in that context. If it's not a workplace, there's still the social dimension to consider. And maybe they're suffering from some condition they don't know they have, so it could be a medical issue. It's always hard to raise such matters with the person concerned, but in such circumstances someone may have to bite the bullet. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Fox Hunting Toffs

I see from the above that Major Bonkers and Clio both favour fox hunting (Tony Blair, 19 April). Is this view widespread among the English, or is it only among the toffs/upper class? Sassoon II (talk) 10:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The links and references in Fox hunting that pertain to the UK should help you. Broadly speaking, MPs from the right representing areas where the upper classes traditionally engage in fox hunting voted against the ban, while left-leaning MPs from urban areas voted for. However, that's a pretty crass simplification. Actual public opinion on something like this is pretty damn hard to quantify without a full scale referendum. Blair supported a compromise that would have allowed hunting with dogs in a limited, licensed form, but the full ban was pushed through despite being rejected by the House of Lords. Deiz talk 11:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

In my neck of the woods, hunting - or, at least, large groups of toffs riding out in neat attire - is also popular with the plebs. But it's a fairly feudal part of the country populated by people with limited horizons. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't tend to get polled that often these days, but reading old articles that feature poll results give an interesting view. For example this article from 2000 showing how opinion varied but was generally negative about things remaining as they were. Fox hunting was banned because the majority wanted it banned. As suggested by Deiz, it's not quite an upper/lower thing, although there is certainly a class element (think of how long bear baiting and cock fighting have been banned and compare). There is also a country/town element, to some extent. But none of it is straight forward. In the most general terms though, yes it's a view mostly held by those who either took part or liked to think they might take part some day, and that tends to be the upper classes and those who think they could get into them. 79.66.99.37 (talk) 16:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The country/town element is probably more important than 79.66.99.37 suggests. There is a perception in rural communities that they are under threat from the towns, with shops, pubs, post offices and schools disappearing from villages for economic reasons, and public transport sparse and expensive. Changes in farming have cut employment opportunities in the countryside, and house prices and the increase in the ownership of second homes mean younger people are unable to afford a home locally and must move away. All this has led to a siege mentality in some rural areas, and pro-hunting campaigners linked their cause with that of rural communities in general, to form the Countryside Alliance. Hunting and its associated activities, it is argued, provide economic activity in areas which are struggling and under-resourced, and is part of a "country" way of life for all rural people. It's true that hunting is not a "toffs-only" activity: several of my childhood friends hunted regularly, as did the local great and good, but hunt supporters also included the local postman and the old guy who cut the grass in the churchyard each week. Keeping hunting horses is an expensive proposition, though, and the whole social thing surrounding hunting is definitely for the upwardly-mobile or those who've already arrived..

To give you an example, the 2002 Countryside March [3] was billed as a march for "Liberty and Livelihood" in the coutryside in general, but grew out of the pro-hunting campaign. And the slogan adopted by the campaigners: "Fight Prejudice - Fight the Ban" [4] suggests bigoted town-dwellers passing judgement on matters of which they know nothing. I can't offer you references, just anecdotal evidence, but I do recall seeing 2002 marchers interviewed who stated that they personally did not support hunting, but were marching over other threats to rural life. The various rural causes, including the case for hunting, have been so thoroughly entwined that it is difficult to consider them in isolation. Karenjc 17:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I first rode to hounds when I was twelve-years-old and I have absolutely adored the experience over the years! I've met all sorts of lovely people, but I particularly like the feudal types, those with the narrowest of horizons. I'm in complete agreement with Mrs Miniver: there is nothing as delightful as a crusty old English colonel! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

When you say you "rode to hounds" you mean you hunted foxes. Yes, I know "riding to hounds" is the term used, but it is essentially a pompous euphemism. And I'm sure it was of great comfort to the fox, as it was torn limb from limb by a pack of baying dogs, that a twelve-year-old girl "absolutely adored the experience." --Richardrj ^{talk email} 08:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Plutarch noted Bion's aphrorism: little boys throw stones at frogs for sport, but the frogs die in earnest" - Nunh-huh 23:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

And the ban has not worked in the slightest.And a lot of working class people depend upon local hunts for their living.hotclaws 07:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

130.88.140.123 (talk) 12:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

And how can anyone like 'feudal types, those with the narrowest of horizons'? Maybe it is funny to meet one of these once, but regularly?217.168.3.246 (talk) 09:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Their horizons may be narrow, but they do not lack depth. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Julia Rossi (talk) 10:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Were you 'blooded' on your first hunt, Clio?Sassoon II (talk) 11:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was. However, for fear of upsetting more sensitive souls I think it time for me to move on. After all; there are other quarries to chase! Tally-ho! Clio the Muse (talk) 22:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I'm completely insensitive, though. I think that the answer to your question is that fox-hunting is not, nowadays, a past-time defined particularly by class but by a rural identification or state of mind. Before the war, when the pattern of landowning was based on great estates with tenant farmers, the landlord could require his tenants to allow the hunt access. That pattern has now (more-or-less) changed; the 'great estates' being owned by the National Trust or farming companies, such as the Co-op; ironically, both these organisations require their tenants not to allow hunting over their land.

Nowadays, a hunt could not survive without the active acquiescence, at least, of the farmers over whose land it hunts; they could simply refuse access to their land, which in turn might make surrounding land untenable to hunt over. As an aside, I remember when I took myself off stag-hunting over Dartmoor, and I was surprised to see a whole load of people on scrambler motorcycles following the hunt; they, of course, didn't bother with the formalities of bowler hat, ratcatcher coat, and butcher boots, but I daresay that they had just as much fun as those who had gone to the additional expense of outfitting themselves 'properly'. Incidentally, hunting down in that part of the world is almost universally popular, across all classes of people - it's almost a religion.

Regarding the specifics of the hunt ban in England and Wales, it was, firstly, a rather spiteful measure, at odds with the English political tradition of tolerance and, secondly, the issue was raised, having long been resisted by Tony Blair, as a diversion when his Iraq policy was coming under attack from within his own party. There's a good newspaper article on the subject: The death of the hunt will be Blair's memorial. --Major Bonkers (talk) 16:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Well said! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Abdication Crisis of 1936

Hello. Did Baldwin ever give serious thought to the possibility of a morganatic marriage between Edward and Wallis Simpson? What were the arguments against such an arrangement?217.42.101.16 (talk) 10:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes he did, according to both our articles on Wallis Simpson and the Edward VIII abdication crisis. Our articles aren't clear on the reasons against, however, only suggesting that there was no precedent in British history. The BBC says [Baldwin] would have had to [create new legislation] to make a morganatic marriage happen, but not why he, his cabinet and the governments of the dominions refused to do so. It seems it was considered a moral question, not just one of simple legal possibilities. WikiJedits (talk) 13:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Members of the royal family cannot enter a legally valid marriage without the monarch's consent, but Edward VIII, being the monarch, could have given himself consent to marry whomseover he pleased. What stopped him being bloody-minded about it and just marrying Wallis, and to hell with what Baldwin thought about it? That would have been a legal marriage, and the entire question of morganacity (?) would have been avoided. Was it just public opinion that stopped him from doing this? If so, why didn't what the public would probably have thought of an abdication stop him from abdicating? -- JackofOz (talk) 14:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The article Morganatic marriage#The United Kingdom contains a reference to a book by AJP Taylor which may shed some light on why the idea was rejected. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 14:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

He couldn't. If he'd married Wallis, Baldwin would've resigned, causing a constitutional crisis. Baldwin consulted with the Leader of the Opposition who agreed not to form a government if Baldwin resigned. Furthermore, the dominions (the countries of the Commonwealth, as they were then called) sent back unanimous objection to any marriage. The pressure on the monarch and indeed the monarchy from the government and dominions made it impossible for him to say "to hell with them". PeterSymonds | talk 18:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand the objections, by both the UK and the Dominions. However they were not objections about the legality of any such marriage. What if Edward had said "You're bluffing and I'm going to call your bluff by marrying Wallis as soon as it can possibly be arranged"? Would the UK really have been left politically rudderless for any significant period? That would have painted the politicians as even more bloody-minded than Edward. Surely someone would have put their hand up and said to the king "Sire, since Baldwin and the Leader of the Opposition have refused to form a government, I am your man". -- JackofOz (talk) 23:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Baldwin, 217, was a very cautious man, taking advice at almost every stage as the 'King's Great Matter' progressed. He came to rely, in particular, on Sir Donald Somervell, the Attorney-General, as well as Sir John Simon, the Home Secretary and a former Attorney-General. Somervell took the view that it would be unconstitutional for the monarch to marry contrary to the advice of his ministers. It would effectively turn the English constitution backwards, to the situation prevailing prior to the Glorious Revolution in 1688, which placed firm limits on the prerogative powers of the monarchy.

On the possible morganatic solution Edward initially treated this with distaste, though finally agreeing that it be worth trying as a way of keeping him on the throne, with his wife without the position of Queen but with a title, such as the Duchess of Cornwall. When the proposal was put to Baldwin he was non-committal, but agreed to refer it to the Cabinet. But he remained unconvinced. Somervell confirmed that the whole thing was quite hopeless, telling the Prime Minister what he already knew, that 'the wife of the King is Queen’, and that it would require an Act of Parliament to prevent such a result. It would, Somervell said, be an odd Act, which, if honest, would have to start;

Whereas the wife of the King is Queen and whereas the present King desires to marry a woman unfit to be Queen, Be it hereby enacted etc. etc.

The matter was placed before the Cabinet, as Baldwin promised, but was greeted without enthusiasm, most feeling, as Neville Chamberlain noted in his Diary, that it would simply be the prelude to making Wallis Queen. In the end Edward was told that the proposal was impossible.

I simply cannot conceive of any situation in which Edward would have married unilaterally. Even he, limited as his intellect was, would have been aware that the constitutional crisis that would have followed may have come close to destroying the monarchy itself, or at least forcing on him the same fate as that of James II. Yes, there probably would have been those who would have supported the King in all circumstances, not a political outcome, I think, that would have settled well with most British people. If he wanted to marry Wallis he had to abdicate; there was no other way. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

This is really fascinating, Clio. So this gives us the rather odd situation that members of the Royal Family need only the monarch's permission to marry, but when the monarch him/herself wants to marry, he/she needs the unanimous permission of the Prime Ministers of 16 separate realms. It would take only one objection, eg. the PM of Zambia, to put an end to such plans. How interesting. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I merely lay out the facts, Jack, as presented by history. I will say, though, that there may be many members of the royal family; there is only one head of state. However, I cannot imagine the political or personal circumstances in which such a case would ever arise again. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Medusa comes to mind but I don't know which body it rightly belongs to.  ; ) Julia Rossi (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Who'd be King? Poor buggers. 130.88.140.123 (talk) 12:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The Last Riding Master

I'm trying to remember the name of the German author who wrote the above collection of stories? He also wrote tales set in the Baltic area, if that is any help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.242.98 (talk) 15:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Werner Bergengruen His book is called Der letzte Rittmeister. The last cavalry captain.--Tresckow (talk) 16:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

In the original German Bergengruen's book is called Der Letzte Rittmeister, which appeared in its first English translation in 1953 as The Last Captain of Horse: A Portrait of Chivalry. You will find other stories of his Baltic childhood, 86.151, in Der Tod von Reval. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Dutch-language book

An acquaintance of mine (who does not speak Dutch) has a Dutch-language book entitled Schetsen, apparently written by someone named J. van Maurik. There doesn't appear to be any publication information in the volume, but the book is several decades old: this acquaintance, who is near retirement age, said that the book was given to his grandfather as a young man. Is anyone familiar with this book? And if so, what is it about? Nyttend (talk) 15:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

"Schetsen" is Dutch for "sketches". The author, Justus van Maurik jr., (1846-1904) was a Dutch author and cigar maker, who wrote comedies and a lot of short stories. He was also one of the founders of De Amsterdammer, the precursor of De Groene Amsterdammer. Looking him up in the database of the public library in Amsterdam I find several books with the word "schetsen" in the subtitle, most of them collections of short stories about the people of Amsterdam. 194.171.56.13 (talk) 15:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

If you could scan a sample I'll translate a bit. User:Krator (t c) 13:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Roman executions of rulers

Why did Rome kill rulers after it conquered an area? Did Rome see them as being criminals or as having no place or as a threat to the Roman State? For instance when America "conquered" Japan it did not kill of any of its [non-military] rulers although some German rulers were killed on the grounds of war crimes. 71.100.7.78 (talk) 16:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, some Japanese leaders were executed, including Prime Minister Tojo. Nyttend (talk) 16:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

As to "rulers" I was thinking more of the Emperor of Japan than military leaders, although one can certainly argue that a general who is serving in the role of prime minister is not technically a military leader. Rome seemed to include, however, anyone and everyone, civilian, military, and even visitors from foreign "states". 71.100.7.78 (talk) 18:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Military occupation 2,000 years ago was a much more difficult affair than it was after WWII. After the Romans had conquered someone, the economy and populace of the conquered area was still largely intact (although there were a few exceptions, like Carthage). Usually, the only thing there to pacify the population was an army that would be considered small by today's standards. Given the fact that a surviving ruler was an excellent focal point for a revolt, killing the ruler or ruling class was a great way to subdue the conquered area, and to convince them that they had truly been defeated. After WWII, there was little threat of a pro-Tojo or Nazi revolt in the defeated countries, as most of the cities had been destroyed and the countries were under occupation by a huge number of troops. There really wasn't a need to go around wiping out anyone who had had any political authority. (Although, of course some were killed, but mostly for war crimes violations, etc.) As to the question of allowing Hirohito to not just remain alive, but in power, the article on him gives some good answers, such as the wish to have a traditional figurehead to add stability to the new government. AlexiusHoratius (talk) 19:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

That clarifies the reason for Roman's actions but raises a question about the Japanese in regard to an incident which occurred (in my presence) at the Library of Congress where a Japanese student was studying and seemed very irritated by the presence of Americans as if only he had a right to be there studying. I'm wondering now if the statement by Bix that, "MacArthur's truly extraordinary measures to save Hirohito from trial as a war criminal had a lasting and profoundly distorting impact on Japanese understanding of the lost war." provides the reason behind this student's irritation. 71.100.7.78 (talk) 01:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Returning to your Roman question, 71.100, it is simply not true that native rulers were always killed following conquest. Quite often the Empire was prepared to work with and through local elites; certainly in the more civilised east and even in the 'barbarous' west. Even fairly major enemies, like Caractacus, who headed the resistance to the Roman conquest of Britain, and Zenobia, who tried to lead the Palmyrene Empire to independence, were allowed to live out their lives in comfort after being taken captive to Rome. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Clio's right (as usual), I shouldn't have given strength to the idea of Romans running around everywhere lopping off heads and crucifying everyone. I was thinking of Vercingetorix, the Jewish revolt, and Carthage, but Rome could also be very accomodating to the conquered peoples, as Clio said, and this pragmatism was one of their strengths as a power. To the Hirohito thing, I don't really understand the "profoundly distorting impact" comment. Was the writer saying that the Japanese saw this as a sort of American concession to Japan? AlexiusHoratius (talk) 03:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I have only that one event at the LOC to go by. Otherwise as far as I know the Japanese seem quit happy to pursue scientific endeavors and studies like Hirohito who had a deep interest in marine biology. My presence at the library was temporary and only to take a few notes and look up several references so the event may not have repeated had my stay been longer but I can never know. While the Japanese seem to be into mechanisms and autonomy of robots my interest was in simulating human thought so unless someone sensed me as competition there should have been no basis for conflict. I will never know. As for MacAuthor's actions being interpreted as a concession, yes, I think they could have said to the Japanese people that they were blameless for the war, had no choice but to support the war effort and that all blame was on Tojo. On the other hand most Japanese seemed to openly adopt the artifacts of American culture like baseball after the war which suggests the opposite and that they did in fact see themselves as a conquered but saved people. With all the American troops there and lots of restrictions who really knows but the Japanese? 71.100.7.78 (talk) 09:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The conquest of Gaul was accompanied by so much wholesale slaughter, freely admitted to by Caesar in his Gallic Wars, that we would certainly consider him a war criminal and probably a perpetrator of genocide; a bit like one of the great biblical heroes. --Major Bonkers (talk) 13:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, it depended on how much the Romans were pissed off by the ruler in question, and what political benefits the individual who defeated the ruler could gain from appearing either magnanimous or ruthless. Jugurtha is a case in point, and probably the classic case of a ruler "executed" by Rome for almost certainly trumped-up crimes - and actually because the crimes of the Senate in collaborating with Jugurtha could only be excised by executing the man.

About Caesar and his behaviour in Gaul, its important to remember that many even at the time considered it excessive; some of it was genuine repugnance at what was believed to be unnecessary brutality; some of it was jealousy that Caesar had benefited so much from the revenues accruing from the sale of of a large fraction of an entire people; some of it was concern for what the importation of vast numbers of slaves was doing to the basis of the Italian rural economy. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, by following links beginning with Jugurtha it becomes somewhat clear that Rome operated on a case by case basis rather than having a general policy or rule other than a consensus that a conquered ruler was the friend or enemy of Rome. 71.100.7.78 (talk) 18:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

A French alternative to Sartre

Was there an existential alternative in France to Sartre's radical athieism? Steerforth (talk) 18:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there was Gabriel Marcel! Clio the Muse (talk) 02:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Iris Murdoch

How did Iris Murdoch approach existential issues? Steerforth (talk) 18:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Iris Murdoch's approach is clearly laid out in Sartre: the Romantic Rationalist and in the essays collected in Existentialists and Mystics. Beyond that you should also dip into her novels, many of which have existential themes. For instance in The Black Prince, written from the point of view of a man condemned to death, the author engages in a sustained dialogue with Albert Camus's The Outsider. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The Gordon riots

In his introduction to the Penguin Classics edition of A Tale of Two Cities, George Woodcock says, "[Dickens] preached that we must not allow society to take on the condition of frustrated anger in which men become mobs and the world is violently upturned. Once, during the Gordon riots, England had known such a peril." What were the Gordon riots? Corvus cornix_talk 20:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Gordon Riots. Dickens weaved much of Barnaby Rudge: A Tale of the Riots of 'Eighty around them - well worth the read. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I should have known we'd have an article. Thanks.  :) Corvus cornix_talk 20:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Recent Bills/Issues in the German Parliament (Bundestag)

I need to know about recent issues in the German Bundestag since the past German election and if any bills were passed to deal with them. If any bills were passed I also would like to see which party voted for what. I cannot find any good sources of information for this. BlackDiamonds (talk) 21:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

What are you looking for that isn't on their website http://www.bundestag.de/ (especially in the documents section that has speakers' notes, studies, votes, and such)? -- kainaw™ 22:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

more specifically here. this site mentions laws, parliamentary requests for information, reports, etc: [5]--Tresckow (talk) 22:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It's all in German though. I do have quite a bit of understanding of the German Language, however I would like to have something in English, just to make sure I understand it properly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlackDiamonds (talk • contribs) 23:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

James, Viscount Severn's godparents

According to the James, Viscount Severn article, "James's five godparents were Denise Poulton, Jeanye Irwin, Alastair Bruce, Duncan Bullivant and Tom Hill". Who are these people? Corvus cornix_talk 23:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Duncan Bullivant - most likely the head of Henderson Risk, mercenaries in Iraq & suchlike. [6]. Ex-army, and possibly in 1998 a member of staff of the International High Representative in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Carlos Westendorp. Evidently media savvy [7] [8] --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Alistair Bruce, a Scots Guard Falklands veteran who taught Sophie to windsurf more than a decade ago and became a firm friend [9]
• Jeanye Irwin, Sophie's former flatmate, an American. [10]

Related question: how do you pronounce Jeanye? Gwinva (talk) 02:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

like genie--Wetman (talk) 04:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Corvus cornix_talk 17:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)