Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2018 September 15

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.

September 15

Dr Parodi, "agent of the opposition party in Turkey", First World War

Who was the Dr Parodi, "agent of the opposition party in Turkey", with whom Philip Kerr had a discussion about a possible peace with Turkey? The interview took place in Switzerland on 18th December 1917. Dr Parodi is also described as "head of the Mission Scolaire Egyptienne". DuncanHill (talk) 01:14, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Just a bit more info: Dr. H. Parodi, from:  Millman, Brock (22 May 2014). "Pessimism and British War Policy, 1916-1918". Routledge. p. 150. 88. -- which references p. 138 (that page not particularly helpful) —2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 (talk) 02:42, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

A little more from Intelligence and Imperial Defence: British Intelligence and the Defence of the Indian Empire 1904-1924 by Richard J Popplewell. "Dr Parodi, the director of the Egyptian School at Geneva, had worked for the British since before the war. Leading Egyptian nationalists trusted him." Swiss police allowed him to see papers they had seized from another Eqyptian nationalist (Mansur Rifaat) who had fled Switzerland in August 1914, and he passed the details on to the British Ambassador. He was still working for the British at the end of the War. Google books. DuncanHill (talk) 10:50, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I found a tantalising glimpse in a search result for "PARODI, Dr. HUMBERT DENIS, Swiss Chemist: born July 8, 1876" in World Biography, Volume 2 (1948), p. 3655. There was a fragmentary mention of Egypt too, but I couldn't tell if it was for his entry or further down the page. Alansplodge (talk) 19:50, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Et voila!

'He relied far more, however, upon a volunteer agent, Dr. Humbert Denis Parodi, a strikingly handsome, dark-skinned Swiss citizen of French and Italian descent, who had worked before the war for the Egyptian government as inspector general of public instruction in Cairo...' The Balfour Declaration: The Origins of the Arab-Israeli Conflict by Jonathan Schneer (p. 254).

'Swiss doctor Humbert Denis Parodi, former government inspectorgeneral of public instruction in Egypt, worked with Binns as “the snoop assigned to the surveillance of Egyptian students in Geneva”.' Germany's Covert War in the Middle East: Espionage, Propaganda and Diplomacy in World War I by Curt Prüfer.

He died in 1953. Philosophy , Volume 9 (1953)

I also found 'PARODI André. Counsellor of Legation, b. Cairo, March 10, 1909. son of Parodi - Humbert Denis and Mathlide Bernard' Who's Who in Switzerland: Including the Principality of Lichtenstein (1952)

Alansplodge (talk) 20:08, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Splendid work, thank you Alansplodge. DuncanHill (talk) 22:44, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Dear DuncanHill & Alansplodge, as I am based in Geneva I came across the grave of Dr. Parodi and was intrigued how little info is available about him, much of which you have gathered. Hence, I created both the Wikidata item and Wikimedia Commons Category about him, see https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q114089662 & https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Humbert-Denis_Parodi. I am now in contact with the archives of the League of Nations here at the UN seat hoping for an uploadable photo of him + other info & shall keep you posted. Best regards, R.RomanDeckert (talk) 10:40, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Ropes with elaborate knots

St John's Church, Chester - Hiram-Fenster 2

This image has a lot of interesting details, I stumbled on it while editing Boaz and Jachin. My question is, what is the meaning/symbolism of the knotted ropes on both sides of Hiram? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:53, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Seeing all the Masonic symbols, see the section 'Knotted Ropes and Cords' in this link [1]. Nanonic (talk) 12:15, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

That seems to be it, yes. Unusually Masonic for a church, perhaps? Of course use of symbols will overlap. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:42, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

We have an article on the church, St John the Baptist's Church, Chester. The window is a memorial to the architect T. M. Lockwood. It's not at all unusual to see Masonic symbolism in glass of that era in Anglican churches. DuncanHill (talk) 12:52, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Hiram Abiff was of course the architect of Solomon's Temple, and a central figure in Masonic shenanigans. DuncanHill (talk) 12:56, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

And, of course, Freemasons originated as a guild of stonemasons -- who built churches and cathedrals. This was back when initiations and esotericism was common in guilds -- which the Freemasons took to the N^th degree (N=32). 2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 (talk) 13:11, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm having trouble determining the exact type of knot shown in the window. I thought at first it was a double alpine butterfly knot, but that is too complicated. I think maybe its just a figure of eight knot with two of the turns pulled out to form loops, but I can't get the bit of string on my desk to look the same. Can any nodologists out there help? Alansplodge (talk) 13:40, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

It's not a figure of eight, I think it might be some kind of Turk's Head. I'll have a closer look in a day or two (just about to go out). DuncanHill (talk) 13:55, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

In the meantime, you might try the (surprisingly active) International Guild of Knot Tyers forum: [2], who might find this knotty problem interesting, —2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 (talk) 14:08, 15 September 2018 (UTC) ... or, try perusing the huge List of knots.

It’s obviously a secret knot, known only by the Freemasons... if you figure it out, you can control the world. Blueboar (talk) 14:28, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I was thinking love knots per Nanonic's link, but maybe there's more Dan Brown in this. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:37, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Ok, in seriousness, the specific type of knot is not important to Masonic symbolism... so representations will vary from depiction to depiction (and does not have to be something that can be tied in real life).

That's what they want you to believe. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:06, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

• The knot's a winged cross knot. Masons have lots of symbolism to knotted ropes (typically a loop with twelve equally-spaced knots - if you pull it into a triangle you get a 3:4:5 triangle and a square corner) but little (AFAIK) to knots themself. They favour the figure eight knot rather than a simple overhand, but I've not seen this winged knot used. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:55, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

The Big-Huge List of knots doesn't include the winged cross knot (as seen here), or even a "basic" cross knot (as seen here). 107.15.157.44 (talk) 21:37, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure that Wikipedia calls the basic cross knot a Friendship knot and lists the alternative names as "Chinese cross knot, Japanese crown knot, Square knot (British usage), Success knot, Rustler's knot, Buckaroo knot". A unified system of nomenclature has so far eluded the world of knotting. Perhaps there should be Latin binomials, as in biology. Alansplodge (talk) 08:39, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Alansplodge -- closed-loop knots are studied by mathematicians, and have several systems of precise terminology. The worlds of closed-loop knots and open-loop knots seem to have little overlap (e.g. Figure-eight knot vs. Figure-eight knot (mathematics)). AnonMoos (talk) 16:32, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks AnonMoos. Fascinating but completely incomprehensible to me I'm afraid. I've read it twice and I'm still none the wiser. A really useful knot though, but we Britons always say "figure OF eight". [3] Alansplodge (talk) 18:59, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Here it be. It doesn't seem to have the axial symmetry which the window image has, perhaps some artistic licence. I have added this to the friendship knot article. Thanks and well done, Andy Dingley. Alansplodge (talk) 14:51, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

The reference desk, you gotta love it. Sometimes like a strange form of art/poetry. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:33, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

---

Mystery knot solved

I posted on the forum (linked above); after some discussion, someone named Xarax came up with the solution: (Mystery-knot.JPG) — He remarked that: "...it is just a type of simple double loop with communicating eyes... It is meant to be hung from somewhere, hence its vertical orientation." See forum discussion thread:[4] Note that it is somewhat different from Alansplodge's photo, but identical in form to the window image (on the right). —2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 (talk) 02:36, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Splendid. I have now replicated it with the string on my desk. It seems to be completely useless as a knot, pulling either loop turns it into a simple overhand knot, but I suppose it has decorative value. Many thanks for your efforts. Alansplodge (talk) 23:01, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Part II: A more exact knot (by SS369, same forum): [5] 2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 (talk) 00:07, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

It does look more like the knot in the window. Even more useless though. Thanks again. Alansplodge (talk) 19:22, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Unwanted crown

How many times have there been not enough (0) claimants to a crown, instead of the typical too many? Temerarius (talk) 13:14, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm speculating, but I think in some sense, there will always be claimants, like in King Ralph. But there's also cases like Charles XIV John of Sweden. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:30, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Or in the case of a newly-minted kingdom, like Otto of Greece. --Xuxl (talk) 13:39, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Well... some crowns were conferred by election... no one can claim to be Holy Roman Emperor. Blueboar (talk) 14:07, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

maybe I should have asked instead about times when a successor has refused a crown. Temerarius (talk) 14:57, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I can't think of any examples. One could argue per George_I_of_Greece#King_of_the_Hellenes that Alfred, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha refused the crown of Greece, but it was probably not really his decision. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:15, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Some here, perhaps:[6]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:28, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

The Frankfurt Parliament offered Frederick William IV the crown of Germany which he refused purportedly because he would not accept "a crown from the gutter" (he was already King of Prussia). 2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 (talk) 16:08, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

22 years later, Henri, Count of Chambord refused the French crown, leading to the establishment of a temporary republic that stuck around until France's defeat in World War II. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 17:15, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Tsar Nicholas II of Russia abdicated in favour, not of his son Aleksey, but of his brother Grand Duke Michael Alexandrovich of Russia, who declined to accept the throne, or at least chose to defer his acceptance until the Russian people's representatives had a say. The monarchy was abolished in the meantime, so the man prematurely proclaimed as "Tsar Michael II" was never actually tsar. See Grand Duke Michael Alexandrovich of Russia#Abdication of Nicholas II. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:47, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Henryk Walezy was elected King of Poland, and was crowned in Krakow, and served in the role for a few months in 1574. Upon learning that he had inherited the Kingdom of France upon the death of his older brother, he basically skipped town and forgot that he ever was King of Poland. He never formally abdicated or anything, he just left Poland and ignored any of the Sejm's requests to please come back, or at least explain himself, or even acknowledge that he had actually been King of Poland. You know, anything like that. They waited about a year, and finally just decided he wasn't coming back and elected a new king. --Jayron32 19:31, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Ok, Charles XIV John of Sweden is supposed to have said something like "I was a Marshal of France, now merely King of Sweden", but Henry was worse. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

To go back to the original question, if you look at what happened when Anne, Queen of Great Britain died, Parliament had to pass an act (Act of Settlement 1701) decreeing that the Crown would pass to the heirs of the Electress Sophia of Hanover, as there were no legitimate Protestant heirs in the country. This was to exclude the over 50 Catholic heirs with a better claim than hers. So although it was a manufactured situation, there were 0 heirs that were deemed suitable to acceed to the British throne in 1714. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:39, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

The Act of Settlement was passed before Anne became Queen, not after she died. Catholics were already barred from the throne by the Bill of Rights. DuncanHill (talk) 20:05, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

US Senators, 1894

I've identified four of the seven senators pictured here (the three chessmen that have been taken, and Hill at left), but I'm still missing three names: Boutelle (behind Hill), Blount (right of Lilioukalani), and Willis (right of Blount). I also don't know who Gresham is (man standing behind table). Any ideas? The cartoon dates from 1894, when the 53rd United States Congress was meeting, but these names aren't there: Boutelle is a representative, there's no Blount, the only Willis is Willis Sweet, and Gresham is a representative. Also, is there a senator whose appearance is the basis of the "Senate" chessman (holding the "Senate Investigation" roll) in Uncle Sam's hand? Nyttend (talk) 18:10, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

• Walter Q. Gresham (Judge)
• U.S. Commissioner James H. Blount (see also: Blount Report)

—2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 (talk) 18:23, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

• Albert S. Willis and Charles A. Boutelle. They all had some involvement in the Hawaiian matter, I gather by looking online at a bio of Gresham.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:49, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
• Gresham is likely standing behind the table as Cleveland's Secretary of State (a renegade Republican)--Wehwalt (talk) 18:58, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

In 1894, Gresham was Judge of the United States Circuit Court for the Seventh Circuit. 2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 (talk) 19:11, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

No, he was Secretary of State from 1893 to his death in 1895. I can't swear to it, but I think maybe "Senate" is George F. Hoar of Massachusetts, a notable anti-interventionist. But I'd expect him to be on Cleveland's side.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:17, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm ... the cartoon is "circa 1894" -- the scenario seems to sugget the Senate investigation was soon to be, or just beginning. The Blount report was submitted in 1893 (while Gresham was still judge?). So, evidence suggests the cartoon was created before 1894. 107.15.157.44 (talk) 19:45, 15 September 2018 (UTC) ←(aka:2606:A000:...)

It's got to be not earlier than 1893 as Cleveland is plainly president and that is when the Hawaiian overthrow happened. Gresham was sworn in three days after Cleveland's inauguration. This cartoon also suggests "Senate" is Hoar.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:02, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

(e/c) To me, the gist of the cartoon is that the game's "judge" (behind Cleveland) is having second thoughts after seeing Uncle Sam's move (Senate investigation). 2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 (talk) 20:06, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Possibly, though I don't know what the Seventh Circuit (based in Chicago) on which he served would have to do with it and he isn't wearing robes. But given that Gresham was very often referred to as "Judge Gresham" (his clerk, by the way, would also be known as "The Judge", a young fellow named Kenesaw Mountain Landis), you may be right.This cartoon (Hoar depicted at 10 o'clock) also suggests "Senate" is Hoar. If it is, we've identified everyone and we can leave the interpretation for the OP.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:10, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Why are they playing with the white corner on the left? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:14, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Because the artist wasn't bothering to be that careful, and may not even have been a chess player: you may also notice that the pieces on the board aren't all centred on squares. The idea of the negotiations as a chess game is adequately conveyed without needing that degree of attention to detail. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.208.172.36 (talk) 18:49, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

The date of the cartoon is January 27, 1894. KAVEBEAR (talk) 16:58, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Aha! -- the title "Judge" is a red herring. It refers to the verb, not the noun (asking the viewer to "judge"?); and is evidently one in a series→[magazine title] by that name from Sackett & Wilhelms Litho Co. Another example:File:Remember_the_Maine!_And_Don't_Forget_the_Starving_Cubans!_-_Victor_Gillam_(cropped).jpg -- more here:[7] —107.15.157.44 (talk) 01:39, 16 September 2018 (UTC) ... see also: Victor Gillam

By the way, drawing a Polynesian with exaggerated African lips is kind of stupid (and I bet a few people even in 1894 would have thought it was stupid). AnonMoos (talk) 01:48, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Few. It was common in the 19th century to characterize Polynesians with racist African features. KAVEBEAR (talk) 16:58, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

The Senate investigation that is "checkmating" Cleveland is most likely that which resulted in the Morgan Report. Although it was not released for month after the cartoon, they probably had a fair idea how it was going to come out, given the composition of the committee.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:36, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I find it funny how smug and skilled Uncle Sam is and he never noticed the chessboard is turned wrong. Even kids that are just learning the rules are taught "white on right" Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:58, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what rank "Senate" is supposed to be but unless he is one, there isn't a king on the board.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:53, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Blount is wearing a crown. 107.15.157.44 (talk) 01:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Maybe Sam's king is behind his sleeve? Usually chess kings are the tallest piece but this is already a weird set so why not. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:43, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I took Blount for a bishop but if the black chess king is much smaller than the black chess queen, the white king may well be the one we can't entirely see.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:18, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Uhmmm ... have we forgotten that this is just a cartoon? 107.15.157.44 (talk) 00:14, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I get your point but that's what Peter Griffin says after he grinds his body on a 10th or 11th grade girl. (actually "what? It's just a cartoon") Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:56, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Y'all worrying about the details too much. This isn't a drawing of a real chess game, it's just a cartoon to get across the idea of "political maneuvering as a parallel to chess strategy". As someone mentioned earlier the board is not marked properly for a chess board. Not to mention the fact that the opponent is said to have lost his queen and the game, two conditions that are not the same thing in chess. Why should it bother us that one side does not have a visible king? --Khajidha (talk) 19:19, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

That could be part of the joke. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:38, 18 September 2018 (UTC)