Humanities desk
< May 2	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 4 >

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.

May 3[edit]

Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra's Family[edit]

How do you know if you are connected to a family member of Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra? His brothers or sisters? Plz help me, no one seems to know the answer

Family history genealogy or Genetic fingerprinting or your last name is de Cervantes Saavedra may all be indicators. -- Ironmandius (talk) 03:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra descendants (desendientes)[edit]

Is Liz Saavedra a descendant of the Cervantes Saavedra family? Es Liz Saavedra desendiente de la familia Cervantes Saavedra?

Miguel de Cervantes adopted the second surname of Saavedra, apparently hoping to make his origins sound more glorious, at a time when the world paid a lot of attention to such things. So far as we know, he was the first Cervantes Saavedra, but he established no family of that name. Your question is really about the name Sa(y)avedra, and the safest answer is probably that we don't seem to know of any genealogical connection between Cervantes and Liz Saavedra. Xn4 22:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Martin/The Queen, Our Head of State[edit]

Les questions sont les suivantes:

1-Pourquoi Mr. Martin, fallait-il quitter son poste de Premier Ministre? Qu'est-ce qui est arrive? (Je n'ai pas de clavier francais ici...ignorez les fautes s.v.p.)

2-Quel est le role de la Reine dans notre pays? Recoit-elle de l'argent des Canadiens? Recoit-elle une somme speciale parce qu'elle est la Reine, quoique symbolique, de notre pays?

Merci.

Franco-ontarienne —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.103.19.71 (talk) 05:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the second question, the role of Queen in Canada, see Monarchy of Canada (or Monarchie canadienne). For the first, the article Paul Martin (fr:Paul Martin) will also help you. Thanks, PeterSymonds | talk 06:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Martin était à la tête d'un gouvernement minoritaire, détenant moins que la moitié des sièges de la Chambre des communes canadienne. Le 28 novembre 2005, à cause de problèmes graves, la Chambre des communes a voté une motion de non-confiance qui a forcé Martin à présenter la démission de son gouvernement. Xn4 21:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Becoming beastly in order to fight a beast[edit]

There seems to be an old myth, legend or fairy tale illustrating almost every moral situation human beings face. Aesop's fables, for example, offer a quick way to refer to a range of common situations; think of 'sour grapes'. I have been trying without success to find anything similar which illustrates the idea that in order to fight a beast, one may have to become, or may end up becoming, beastly oneself. Is there such a tale in any language? 210.50.16.76 (talk) 07:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC) Danhi[reply]

Here's something to get you started:

“

You must know, then, that there are two methods of fighting, the one by law, the other by force; the first method is that of men, the second of beasts; but as the first method is often insufficient, one must have recourse to the second. It is therefore necessary for a prince to know well how to use both the beast and the man. This was covertly taught to rulers by ancient writers, who related how Achilles and many others of those ancient princes were given to Chiron the centaur to be brought up and educated under his discipline. The parable of this semi-animal, semi-human teacher is meant to indicate that a prince must know how to use both natures, and that the one without the other is not durable. A prince being thus obliged to know well how to act as a beast must imitate the fox and the lion, for the lion cannot protect himself from traps, and the fox cannot defend himself from wolves. One must therefore be a fox to recognize traps, and a lion to frighten wolves.

”

— Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince

— Kpalion^(talk) 07:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Covering the "may become beastly oneself" angle, there's a famous Nietzsche aphorism that can be translated as "He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster." (see the Wikiquote page for an attribution). --Delirium (talk) 11:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plymouth[edit]

If Plymouth has been abandoned, why isn't Brades Montserrat's new capital? Interactive Fiction Expert/Talk to me 10:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brades is evidently the seat of government, for now on a temporary basis, but Plymouth is still the de jure capital. To change that, no doubt there would need to be a formal decision to choose a new capital, which might or might not be Brades. Xn4 21:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pope's villa bombed in WW2?[edit]

I've found a reference, possibly Japanese propaganda dated 22 Feb 1944, which states that "Castilnova, the site of the Pope's villa 12 miles outside Rome, has been bombed by the Americans, 300 nuns being killed. Vatican City is incensed at the outrage". I can't find any corroboration of this event. Was Castel Gandolfo only one of several Papal villas, Castilnova being another? Did the attack ever happen? Have the casualties been fabricated or exaggerated? 86.134.119.77 (talk) 10:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A bombing does appear to have taken place, and the villa in question is indeed Castel Gandolfo; our article on it should mention its World-War-II role, but currently doesn't. I'm not sure why the reference you found calls it Castilnova, though. As far as the nature of the bombing and the casualty figures, I found a source that roughly corroborates the account you quote, but it's a book that explicitly aims to argue for the positive role of the Catholic Church in WW2, so may not be the most neutral source. Another source only mentions 17 nuns killed. There are probably other sources that could clear this up and be used to improve our article on Castel Gandolfo. I'll post the two quotes I found and start a discussion on Talk:Castel Gandolfo. --Delirium (talk) 12:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting, thanks. I'll keep an eye on the talk page:)86.134.119.77 (talk) 14:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abbey Road (street)[edit]

Would a Londoner - or, for that matter, an outsider - know the historical origin of the name of this street ? Many thanks for any clues you may have. - Mu (talk) 15:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but this book claims to. Algebraist 15:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

English Queens and puddles[edit]

Did anyone actually ever lay their coat over a puddle for an English (British) Queen or is it just a widespread error!? Thanks--Cameron (t|p|c) 16:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's supposed that Walter Ralegh first caught Queen Elizabeth I's attention by laying his coat over a puddle for her. That was from Anne Somerset's biography of her; she assumes it to be popular legend, but doesn't dismiss it completely. That's where the legend started anyway (not from the book, from the Raleigh episode). PeterSymonds | talk 16:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks Peter. I just purchased and watched Elizabeth:The Golden age. That is why I asked. But I thought I had heard the rumour about a later female monarch and was thus confused. It seems there is no historical evidence to back this up then?A romantic guesture nonetheless! = ) --Cameron (t|p|c) 16:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. It's a shame that all the best legends are rumours, but no. Sarah Gristwood said: "The cost of a coat would buy a small estate. If Walter Raleigh did fling his coat down over a puddle for Elizabeth to walk over, it was a fairly impressive gesture."[1]. No firm source though, but it's good enough to be true in my mind :). PeterSymonds | talk 16:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it was a poodle. But I am sure, Clio the Moose will elaborate on that. Her bliss may be minimal, bat we all can´t be perfect. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please, never believe anything Shekhar Kapur puts in a movie. If its in there, that increases the probability of it being mythical exponentially. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Moose's bliss is maximal, Cookatoo; always maximal. Bat, dear, as hard as you can! Clio the Muse (talk) 22:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]