Humanities desk
< June 15	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 17 >

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.

June 16

Does anybody know the date of the 2014 British Titanic Society Convention?

If you know it, I'd do whatever you want, I need to know it at all costs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.178.191.57 (talk) 00:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find it on the British Titanic Society website ([1]), which makes me wonder whether they have decided a date yet. I suggest you contact them directly: [2]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Was every other man in Tudor England named Thomas?

My wife and I have been watching The Tudors, and it seems like there are more characters named Thomas than not. There's Thomas More, Thomas Wolsey, Thomas Cranmer, Thomas Cromwell, Thomas Wyatt, Thomas Seymour, and many more. I know the popularity of names ebbs and flows, but this seems unusual. --BDD (talk) 01:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with the name "Thomas"? Thomas is a biblical name, the name of an apostle. I think that would tell you the significance of the name. Sneazy (talk) 03:32, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think BDD is suggesting that there's anything wrong with the name, just that it seems awfully common in Tudor England. Not surprisingly, we have an article called Thomas (name), which tells us that "The name becomes more common during the High Middle Ages..." Not sure how helpful that is. HiLo48 (talk) 03:39, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't Tudor times be part of the Renaissance England? Or is Renaissance England really the latter part of the Tudor dynasty (the reign of Queen Elizabeth)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sneazy (talk • contribs) 03:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, to one or the other of those, but unfortunately the History section of our article stops at 1270. HiLo48 (talk) 04:30, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure what the OP's question is, but it's worth noting that Thomas was an extremely common name in late medieval and early modern England. (The beginning of the reign of the Tudor dynasty in 1485 tends to be considered the definitive end of the Middle Ages in England, so the reign of Henry VIII is the early modern period). This research on name frequency from funerary brasses [3] suggests that Thomas was the second most common name after John in the period from the 12th to the 16th Century. 14% (on these figures) of the male population went by the name Thomas. It seems likely (OR on my part!) that there's a connection between the popularity of the name Thomas in England - where it appears to be much more widespread than in other parts of Europe - and the popularity of the cult of Thomas Becket. Valiantis (talk) 05:38, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a family historian, I would add that the current trend for variety in first names is a pretty recent thing. Up to the early twentieth century there were a relatively small number of first names in circulation, and Thomas was one of those. This was probably because names were mostly passed down in families - the eldest son would usually get his father's name, the eldest daughter her mother's, then grandparents', uncles' and aunts' names for further children. --Nicknack009 (talk) 08:12, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas was the most popular UK baby's name in 1994, [4] and is currently No 6 in the chart. [5]. I think Valiantis is right and Saint Thomas a Becket [6] is the key to the Tudor question, although why it's popular now I'm not so sure. There was only one Thomas in my London secondary school of nearly a thousand boys in the 1970s, and his parents were Czech. Alansplodge (talk) 08:31, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 13:09, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the Thomases listed by the OP seem to have met their respective ends either by a hot stake or a cold chop. Apparently that was no deterrent against the continued popularity of the name. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:23, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although Thomas Audley did alright for himself. It was tough at the top. Alansplodge (talk) 18:25, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all, those were some good answers to what was a fairly snarky question, Valiantis especially. I had wondered if there was a Becket connection involved. --BDD (talk) 05:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion causes me to yearn to enter a Tudor pub and call for Thomas, only for all but a few to turn about! Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Liliuokalani

Who is this man standing next to Queen Liliuokalani in this picture?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at File:Liliuokalani and family1.jpg, he could be Thomas Cleghorn (slightly older in the state archives image) who was the father of Archibald Scott Cleghorn, Governor of Oahu during Liliuokalani's reign and also her brother-in-law. Astronaut (talk) 18:35, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now I've looked again, the Queen's appearence is much older - similar to this image taken in the 1910's - and according to this biography of Archibald, Thomas Cleghorn died shortly after their arrival in Hawaii in 1851. Of course, that then calls into question the caption of the image or just my assumption that the Thomas Cleghorn in the photo, is the same Thomas Cleghorn who was Archibald's father. Astronaut (talk) 18:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prince who died after a prostitute threw acid in his face

According to this and several other Wikipedias, Prince Leopold Clement Philipp August Maria of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha-Kohary (son of Princess Louise of Belgium and Prince Philipp of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha) died after a prostitute threw acid in his face. However, I have not been able to find any reliable source that confirms that. In fact, I have not found been able to find any reliable source that says anything about him. Sure, blogs and forums offer a great amount of detail, but that's not helpful if it cannot be verified. Is anyone able to find out more? Surtsicna (talk) 13:12, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This forum cites a report in The Washington Post, May 28, 1916, which those with a subscription can find here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:20, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! The post contained the alleged prostitute's name, which is all it took to find more. Thanks! Surtsicna (talk) 16:59, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note reading the article Prince_Leopold_Clement_of_Saxe-Coburg_and_Gotha the woman is not described as a prostitute, but as a former lover who wanted the Prince to marry her. Dave w74 (talk) 05:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gender bending in Irish folk songs

Something I've noticed about love songs in Irish folk music. Songs that are addressed to a female lover, like "My Lagan Love", "She Moved Through the Fair" and "Down by the Salley Gardens" are most often sung by women, and "Danny Boy", addressed to a male lover, is most often sung by men (there are exceptions in both cases, but that seems to be the trend). What's going on with that? --Nicknack009 (talk) 17:42, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Danny Boy" is about a father addressing his son who is leaving for war.[7] Not sure about the others; perhaps the female artistes just liked the tunes. Alansplodge (talk) 17:55, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a pedantic aside, I'm not sure that "Danny Boy" really qualifies as Irish Folk music. The tune (generally known as The Londonderry Air) is authentically Irish but was written by a harpist for a late 18th-century Bardic competition, while the words were written by an English lyricist in 1910, making it (in my judgement) more of a popular song version of a semi-classical work. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 13:50, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest - and this is just my opinion - I believe many Irish folk songs (including the ones above) were originally written by men, and not women. Women had children to look after, while the men were out at sea. The modern versions are very often sung by women (such as with Clannad), purely because they are folk songs. They didn't write them themselves. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 18:30, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A good tune trumps so-called gender every time. But that gives me an idea. I think I'll write a piano sonata and specify that it may only ever be performed by male pianists. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC) [reply]

A bit like this? Not exactly a sonata, but.... KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 23:57, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the old days, when the general public was not so "gay-aware", same-sex performances of songs were not uncommon, i.e. nobody thought it strange, because it was just a song, not a political statement. I'm reminded of a song sung by men from time to time, "I'm Just Wild About Harry", written and occasionally sung by that well-known Irishman, Eubie Blake. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another Titanic question, sorry if it bothers

I'm fan of the Titanic and I would like to know this: why if women and children were the first to board the boats, there were male crew members in every boat. Were crew members more important than regular males (passengers)? and my second question only if anybody knows is where did Frederick Fleet, the one who spotted the iceberg, served during World War II. More than thanks to you all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.178.181.110 (talk) 17:45, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Someone in the boat needs to know what to do. That's the job of the crew, most of whom would be male. Even today, when one takes a cruise of whatever duration is whatever waters, there is a lifeboat drill within an hour or so of the first sailing. There, the passengers are divided among lifeboat stations, shown to the crew responsible for that station and taught how to put on their lifejackets, along with receiving instructions on the meanings of various ship's horn messages. The crew's job is to keep track of the people boarding, to get passengers into the lifeboat safely and then to pilot and police the lifeboats in accordance with the nature of the evacuation. Bielle (talk) 17:56, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit Conflict) I'm certain that it was so that there would be somebody on each boat that knew how to handle it. If the sea had been rougher, keeping the boat heading into the waves would have prevented a capsize. The crew member would also understand the importance of getting clear of the sinking ship and know how to get survivors out of the water without tipping everybody else in. Alansplodge (talk) 18:02, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TITANIC SURVIVOR FOUND HANGED - Southampton Echo: Monday 11th January 1965 "Despite his experience, Mr. Fleet spent another 24 years at sea (until 1936?)... Mr. Fleet left the sea in the depression years of the mid-thirties. He was afterwards with Harland & Wolff, the ship repairers, and was a shore master-at-arms for the Union-Castle Line. For a time he was a part-time street seller for the "Echo" with a pitch in Pound Tree-road." Alansplodge (talk) 18:13, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Evangelism and missionary work, Catholic and Orthodox

Often, when I see evangelism and missionary work, they are typically very Protestant (Latter-Day Saints, Jehovah's Witnesses, Evangelicals) in style. How would a Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Christian evangelise? Sneazy (talk) 18:32, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. I answered part of my question here. Orthodox sounds very similar to Reformed theology; "God" bringing in people to the church. Sneazy (talk) 18:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think Roman Catholics send out missionaries to foreign countries. What they do exactly with the missionaries remains a mystery. Maybe they promise indigenous peoples that they could get cheap heathcare or education in exchange for religious conversion. Seeing the need, indigenous peoples convert to Christianity, specifically Roman Catholicism. Sneazy (talk) 18:50, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Without in any way being a Catholic apologist, I think you'll find that bribing people to convert is not the Catholic way and never has been. If you think that's what goes on as a general and widespread practice, then this question is not resolved at all. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:20, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't add the resolved tag; Medeis did. I checked. Sneazy (talk) 21:06, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You said you answered your own question. Do you still have one? μηδείς (talk) 01:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I answered part of my question. The later statement is a falsifiable opinion/speculation, inspired by reading the Approaches to evangelism article. Sneazy (talk) 01:37, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To get back to the original question, a typical approach for Catholic missionaries is to open a school and/or a medical facility in a community they seek to evangelize. This will attract persons who want to use the services offered, some of whom eventually become converts. A more modern approach involves providing different types of social services (such as social clubs, labor unions etc). The approach was less subtle in past times, however. What catholic missionaries typically do not do is go door-to-door trying to engage non-believers directly. --Xuxl (talk) 09:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do television evangelising campaigns count as direct engagement? Because, it's been used here. Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Category:Christian missionaries by denomination.

—Wavelength (talk) 17:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

days of the week

1. how far back has humanity preserved the current days of the week - in the sense that since it's not astronomical in any way, it is quite conceivable that as you count back days of the week and solar days, at some point humanity was off by one

2. what keeps the worldwide days of the week in complete synchronicity? has there ever been a glitch or inconsistency where isolated communities had a different day of the week? It's easy to imagine on a shipwreck (e.g. here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thursday_October_Christian_I) but on the level of cities, coutnries, continents - everyone has always been perfectly in synch?

Is the only power to have kept this the regular rhythm of a religious week (with a day off) and days-of-the-week being tracked? So that the reason that it is never 'off' is that the whole community would have had to be asleep for an indeterminate number of hours between 24-72 and just have no idea what actual day it is?

I find this level of perfect time-keeping in every single community, however isolated, to be quite remarkable. How far back does it go? 178.48.114.143 (talk) 21:07, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, before the Gregorian calendar, there was the Julian calendar. Sneazy (talk) 21:25, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That change did not of itself interrupt the sequence of days of the week, just the numbering of the dates. In the 4 countries that adopted the Gregorian calendar immediately, Thursday 4 October 1582 (Julian) was followed immediately by Friday 15 October 1582 (Gregorian). And when the remaining countries switched over at various times, they also kept the sequence. Managing the relationship between the two calendars has been challenging enough for historians. But it would have created utter chaos if the day called Wednesday 19 June 2013 in Britain was called Thursday 19 June 2013 in Germany and Friday 19 June 2013 in Russia and Saturday 19 June 2013 in the USA.

However, there were some local adjustments that needed to be made, which involved repeating days of the week in some places. For example, "In Alaska, the change took place when Friday, 6 October 1867 was followed again by Friday, 18 October 1867 after the US purchase of Alaska from Russia, which was still on the Julian calendar. Instead of 12 days, only 11 were skipped, and the day of the week was repeated on successive days, because the International Date Line (although not known by that name in 1867) was shifted from Alaska's eastern to western boundary along with the change to the Gregorian calendar". And I'm sure something similar happened in the Phillipines as well. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:54, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) However, neither the Gregorian or the Julian calendars were concerned with the days of the week, just the lengths of months and years. According to the article Seven-day_week, we can verify from ancient calendars that the weekly cycle has remained unbroken since at least 311 AD. - Lindert (talk) 21:56, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re 1: The system of a seven day week was in place by the time that the Book of Genesis was written. Some simple thinking about it would also suggest that the text is telling us that the system was believed to be an ancient one at that point in time, but just how long ago it was written is the subject of massive and heated argument; take your pick from anything from c.2500 to c.3500 years ago and anything in between, then add whatever figure you like for the perception of 'ancientness'. See the not very well-written article, Dating_the_Bible. There's also the article Mosaic authorship, which carefully avoids presenting any traditional dating in its extensive section on traditional dating. --Dweller (talk) 22:03, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But considering how little communication there was in ancient times, isn't it quite strange not only that it was "unbroken" since 311 AD but unbroken everywhere in every community, no matter how isolated or small or large? There were no cases of a few hundred people losing track of the days as they migrated and established a new community, at any time between 311 AD and modern times, where these people established a meaningful large community and became truly out of synch? This seems so bizarre for me. After all, there are several different calendars in use during that time, including, Hebrew, Chinese, Gregorian, Julian, etc. What makes the day of the week something that everyone agrees on? Why wasn't there ever a conflict, so that one group of people thought it was Sunday every time another group of people thought it was still Wednesday? This would seem to me quite likely and plausible as people were isolated worldwide... 178.48.114.143 (talk) 00:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a reasonable hypothesis, and there are probably cases where such confusion has occurred. On the other hand, remember that our culture where most of our remembering is done for us, is very recent; historically, people relied far more on oral traditions and consequently had a stronger internal sense of the sequence of things. We have the "luxury" of sometimes feeling that one day is much like the next and the next and next, and they all blur together in our memories and become as one. But in the past, people took note of the rising and setting of the sun, the weather, celestial omens and the like, and they were generally far more ritualised than we are today. Individuals might sometimes forget details like which day it is; communities do not. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 00:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Germanic weekday names are calques on the Latin. The older system among the Romans was a numeric one using the ides as a day before or after which something occurred. The Semites kept a lunar calendar with weeks and fortnights as quarter and half-cycles. I remember reading there were festivals held quarter-monthly, but a afraid my source for that is memory based on perhaps Anne Rice. Babylon, Rome and Constantinople have been constantly civilized long enough that there is no conflict between the Eastern, Western, and Jewish calendars. μηδείς (talk) 01:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Jewish calendar, on which the seven day system is based, did suffer disruption during periods of persecution. The famous example is that the count of the yovel was lost. Nonetheless, the count of shmita was not. If you can remember where you are in a seven year cycle when people are trying to decorate their swords with the guts of your infants, you can probably remember where you are in a seven day cycle, particularly if your ritual observances demand that you do. --Dweller (talk) 08:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't quite what you're asking about, but before the 19th century ships traveling around the world, or even around part of the world, frequently fell a day out of sync with local reckoning. If I understand right ships tended to keep their records and logs day-by-day even if they fell into conflict with local reckoning. And returning home after a circumnavigation would find their logs off by a day. Without a standardized International Date Line there was no way to say exactly where and when they fell out of sync. An example of this is the records of the Vancouver Expedition of 1791-95, which circumnavigated the world from England in an easterly direction. By the time they got to the Pacific Northwest, after crossing the Pacific, their reckoning was a day off from the "local" Spanish ships and bases, as well as the merchant vessels that had sailed the other direction. Despite Vancouver's careful exploring in cooperation with the Spanish in the region, and lengthy diplomacy and negotiation with Spanish authorities, the expedition kept its records day-by-day, despite being a day off from their Spanish counterparts. Even today when you read the expedition's logs, journal entries, etc, you have to subtract a day from what they say. From what I understand, this kind of "one day off" thing was common in those days, whenever circumnavigations were done. Pfly (talk) 09:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is no "standardized International Date Line" (there is an agreed nautical one, but that's different). Our article International date line says "No international organization, nor any treaty between nations, has fixed the IDL drawn by cartographers". The date line marked on maps is in principle determined experimentally by asking nations near the 180th meridian which side of choose they are on. One consequence of this is that it gets changed from time to time by unilateral decision of a country: most recently Kiribati in 1995. Another is that a cartographer could draw it as wiggly as they liked, as long as it passed the right side of each nation, and nobody could say they were wrong. --ColinFine (talk) 16:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, I see. And actually the most recent might be Samoa, which our page says "changed back" to west of the IDL in 2011, in the process causing havoc among Seventh-day Adventists in Samoa--which might result in a schism. Pfly (talk) 11:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Just adding a reference to a very good site to consult with calendar questions: http://www.tondering.dk/claus/cal/week.php#interrupt - Nunh-huh 06:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So how do pre-contact peoples count the days - do they also have a 7-day week? Astronaut (talk) 18:13, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Our Lady of Peace Cathedral, Honolulu, 1843.jpg

Can anybody with better eyes and ability to read 19th century cursive help me make out the text in this image above the three buildings next to the "Catholic Church" and the title in the center?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:00, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Title: View of Capt. Charles Brewers house. Oahu. First house: Mr. Potys ? Second house: Mr. Ladds ? Third house: Doct Travis ? Rmhermen (talk) 00:08, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]