Humanities desk
< June 18	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 20 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded 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 19

Time-traveling letter short story. Author? Title?

I came across a clip of the film Somewhere in Time (film), and was reminded of a short story I read.

A man discovers an antique desk with three drawers, containing antique notepaper, blank envelopes and three antique stamps. He opened drawer one, and finds a letter penned by a woman, who pours out her heart, regarding the type of man she desires to meet and love. The date of the note is from many, many years prior, and obviously the woman is long dead. The story explains that he knows her name and address, from items in the desk.

Moved by her words, on a whim, he composed a reply, placed it in envelope #1,addressed it to her, and affixed stamp #1. He deposited it in an old, unused postal box. The next night, he opened drawer two. He is astonished to see a reply to his letter. The woman fears that someone is playing a trick on her, but accepts that some "magic" may have happened, and responds to his equally heartfelt words.

Realizing that drawer three is the last opportunity for a reply, he pens a second letter, explaining the strange circumstances, and professing his love and admiration. He explains that this is their last chance to communicate, as there is only a third drawer, envelope and stamp. He mails it in the same manner. The next night, he opens the third, last drawer and reads the woman's reply. He mails a last letter to her, hoping it will move through time again and reach her.

Does anyone know the name of this short story or its author? I read it long ago, and it might have been in an old book, even then. Sorry for such a long question....Thanks! Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 04:46, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amazingly, I found it after only a minute of searching. Here it is in its entirety: "The Love Letter", by Jack Finney, from The Saturday Evening Post, August 1, 1959. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:12, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my! Thanks so very much! I see that I misremembered some details, regarding the stamps and post office. Despite this, you found it, and I am so very grateful to you. I will post some additional comments on your talk. You have made a person, born in the same year (oddly enough!) the story was published, very happy! And you discovered the answer to my question in less than half an hour! Absolutely impressed! Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 06:05, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clarityfiend, sorry, forgot to ping you. See reply above....Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 20:01, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clarityfiend I was initially puzzled as to how I came across this story, which I read in the early or mid 1970s. It was published in "I Love Galesburg in the Springtime (1963) (short story collection)", so that's where I read it in "a book", vs The SE Post. WP is a marvelous thing, and so are you, and the other helpful editors, who are commenting here!Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 23:14, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tribe of Tiger You may also be interested in The Lake House (film), which has a similar theme.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 06:40, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shantavira Thanks, I was unaware of this film and plan to "rent" it. Time travel stories are so interesting, and spark the imagination. Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 19:58, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tribe of Tiger, in case you didn't notice in the linked Jack Finney article, 'The Love Letter' has itself been filmed, as were 10 other of Finney's stories/novels. 'Time-link' stories were a recurrent theme with him. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.59.177 (talk) 21:10, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noted this, and the numerous other films based on his work. Planning to watch some of the films & read more of his work. Thanks, 59.177 for your kindness! Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 23:03, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, the story's mechanism may have been borrowed in the last season of The Magicians. Good to know! —Tamfang (talk) 23:40, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did Hitler speak Italian?

I’m curious to hear what he sounded like if he spoke it. Seeing as how he was a Mussolini fan who visited the Kingdom of Italy in 1934 and again in 1938, it’s hard to believe that there is simply no record of him speaking any Italian. —(((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 04:54, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find anything reliable on Hitler's command of the Italian language. One often reads that Hitler did not speak any foreign languages, but, according to a 1964 Spiegel article by Percy Ernst Schramm, titled Adolf Hitler - Anatomie eines Diktators:

'According to the testimony of one of Hitler’s physicians, Professor von Hasselbach, Hitler regularly asked for British, American and French magazines: “Apart from a little bit of French learned at school, he had gradually acquired the necessary language skills . For this purpose, he often had English and French films shown in their original text, before the war."

Of course, this knowledge was too little to grasp the spirit and structure of foreign languages. However, this did not prevent Hitler from denying the English language its ability to express thoughts going beyond generally established facts and ideas - an old cliché the "Völkisch" liked to use.' (my unauthorized and slightly summarizing translation)

Mussolini, on the other hand, did speak German, though not that well, and liked to show it off. The article on interpreter Paul Schmidt mentions: "Benito Mussolini was fluent in French, and spoke a somewhat fractured, mangled German. Although Mussolini was not as good at German as he pretended to be, he always refused the use of a translator at his meetings with Hitler because of his vainglorious pride." ---Sluzzelin talk 05:48, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

About recordings of Hitler speaking, Hitler and Mannerheim recording says:

However, Damen continued recording—without Hitler's knowledge—after the conversation switched from official to private. It is the only known recording of Hitler speaking in an unofficial tone.

It is the only known recording of Hitler speaking in an unofficial tone and one of the very few recordings in which Hitler may be heard delivering a narrative without raising his voice.

Now I think that maybe Hitler quoted some artistic or politic Italian term or phrase in a speech (he was trained as an artist, wasn't he?). Eppur si muove, Se non è vero, staccato or something like this.

--Error (talk) 18:43, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is a creepy recording, because Hitler sounds like an average Austrian of his generation. Nothing like he sounds in his speeches we are familiar with. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:11, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Upanishads in HInduism

Reading through the articles, I am confused as to whether the Upanishads are a part of the Vedas or a separate Veda. From my (very limited) understanding, the four Vedas (the Rigveda, the Yajurveda, the Samaveda and the Atharvaveda) are books that are each subdivided into four parts (Samhitas, Aranyakas, Brahmanas, and the Upanishads). But then I also heard the Upanishad is a separate Veda so it is different? Could someone please clarify? Nikolaih^☎️📖 05:11, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such text as the Gospel: there are four canonical gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) and some "apocryphal" (extra-canonical) ones (Andrew, Barnabas, James, Judas, Thomas). Likewise, here is no such thing as the Upanishad. Although "Upanishad" is spelled with a capital letter, it is really a common noun. One can say, "The authorship of most Upanishads is uncertain and unknown", and, "Scholars are uncertain about when the Upanishads were composed". Some of the many Upanishads are considered mukhya (principal), but the status of various texts is open to debate. --Lambiam 07:42, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikolaih: User:Lambian is right. I want to add few more points

The four Vedas (the Rigveda, the Yajurveda, the Samaveda and the Atharvaveda) are distinct from later Sanskrit literature (Samhitas, Aranyakas, Brahmanas, and the Upanishads)
As stated above while Vedas are 4 only in numbers, root word ' vid'(yaa)' means knowledge, so if some one goes on to call any knowledge as 'Veda' will not be accurate but can hardly be stopped and exaggerations while praising is regular South Asian habit, so it won't be surprise you find some one calling some other texts may be "Upanishad" as 'Veda' but that would be far from accurate. "Upanishad"s so also Samhitas, Aranyakas, Brahmanas, are distinct genres of Sanskrit literature which came later.
Some times "Upanishad"s are referred as part of Vedanta ('anta, means end) i.e. denotes literature which came after end of Veda literature times
Unlike Abrahamic texts, Hindu texts did not/ do not govern/influence life of Hindus as much directly. Average Hindus are more influenced through mythological story telling and occasional guidance from some Guru/ religious teacher, till last century they used have family Guru system some of family Guru might be in touch with some more learned Gurus. So average Hindu even many ritualistic clerics won't be aware what was all written in exactly in which Sanskrit literature, So among common Indians or Hindus general trend is to refer / generalize almost most ancient Sanskrit literature as Vedic literature even though technically that might not be accurate enough.

Hope this helps

Thanks & Rgds Bookku, 'Encyclopedias are for expanding information and knowledge' (talk) 15:55, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Video of Pierre Elliot Trudeau's May 1979 concession

In May 1979 Pierre Elliot Trudeau appeared before a crowd of supporters and acknowledged that his party had not won the election. He said "But seriously..." and the crowd reacted, some saying "Don't give up", which I surmise meant he might still form a coalition with some other parties. Then he said he was going to go and see the governor general. And he said he thought he would be a pretty good leader of the opposition, and the crowd applauded.

I've entered various search terms and I cannot find the video on Youtube. Why not? Can someone direct me to that somewhere on the internet? Michael Hardy (talk) 05:52, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple sclerosis disability employment discrimination in NYC

I have a very mild case of multiple sclerosis that was discovered in what I was told is a ′textbook case' of 'per chance' diagnosis.

When I was 30 or so, I went to get new eyeglasses. The guy checking my eyes asked me if anybody had ever told me that one of my pupils was markedly larger than the other, and when I said that I'd been wearing glasses since age eight, and that nobody had ever mentioned this, he sent me to a specialist eye clinic.

After spending nearly an entire day there, and seeing six different specialists, I was told that there was actually nothing wrong with the eye itself. The transient difference in pupil size, plus the occasional pain at the front of my left foot, the insensitivity to prick stimuli (stabbing toothpick-like wooden sticks) in my right thigh, and that very occasionally I happily chomp on the inside of my cheeks without noticing until I taste blood, was indicative of MS.

The neurologist I saw after that announced cheerily that given the circumstances, "I'd won the lottery", meaning that my MS was not severe and transient.

From 1999 to 2016 I was a 'permalance' for an NYC not-for-profit, meaning that they paid me a fixed monthly retainer whether I did any work for them that month or not.

In 2007, I rescued them from a major IT disaster, for which they were very grateful, paid me a bonus, and increased my monthly retainer. Just before that, a new operations director joined, to whom I reported. They were very happy with my work because the external IT consultants became impossible to deal with. I took over negotiations with them, which led to a sort of satisfactory solution -- not that it was actually the consultants' fault, given that the not-for-profit without consulting me had failed entirely to screw down specifications, or the contract and terms and conditions. Then I trained the relevant people how to use the new IT system.

In the middle of all that stress, my MS flared up, I began to chew the inside of my cheeks while eating, and it sounded to me like I was slurring my words, so I explained to the new Ops director that I wasn't drunk, but that I had an extremely light case of MS that hadn't got perceptibly worse in well over 20 years. Months later, I was a little late for a meeting because severe foot pain had developed unexpectedly overnight, and I couldn't walk fast enough to make it on time even though I had taken my pain meds, all of which I explained to the Ops director.

About ten weeks later, in Dec of 2007, the new Ops director advertised a job that essentially covered a lot of what I was doing, including the specialized IT that I had negotiated with the outside firm, and was training people inside the org on how to use.

When I emailed the Ops director asking why they hadn't considered me for the job, they wrote, and I am quoting verbatim,

"You know I can't hire you."

WTF?

Because I have an extremely light type of MS?

I had to train the person they hired after that because they had said that they had "a general knowledge" of the IT involved, but actually didn't have the first clue how to use this very specialized IT, and I had to get them up to speed while I was on vacation, where I couldn't be reached easily. When the first person quit, they hired another person who knew even less.

Now, I'm fully aware that this is much, much too late to complain about legally. I was much too frightened at the time that they'd ditch me if I made a noise.

But now I'm 65, and my MS still isn't worse. Sending out job applications is useless because nobody in IT hires you unless you are under 45. I've never had a single reply.

Is there a way to approach the not-for-profit that used to employ me as a "permalance" for 17 years? I don't want to sound desperate, but even if I do not have legal rights, is there a moral argument to be made?

Because really, I am quite desperate, and will lose my home once the benefits run out. 67.243.238.43 (talk) 11:29, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot give medical or legal advice here. You need to find a lawyer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:17, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We are free, though, to discuss moral arguments that may apply, provided that this is not merely an issue of offering personal opinions. You (67.243.238.43) may also try and see if you can get support from MS advocacy groups, such as the National MS Society, perhaps via their Greater New York City – Long Island Chapter. --Lambiam 20:48, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How much weight do moral arguments carry under the law? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:01, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How important is it that you keep asking questions instead of trying to provide answers to questions? --Lambiam 07:38, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I already answered it - "find a lawyer". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:09, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Holiness code

Has the concept of a distinct holiness code existed since the origins of the documentary hypothesis in the 19th century, or is it a later development? Our Holiness code article sure makes it sound like the former, saying that "most versions of the documentary hypothesis" accept the concept of a separate holiness code, and it says that "The Holiness Code is considered part of the Priestly source by scholars holding to the documentary hypothesis", leaving essentially no room for disagreement. But on the other hand, the word "holiness" is totally absent from the Documentary hypothesis article, and if such scholars uniformly deem it a distinct part of P source, I wonder if it would be JEDP(H) instead of merely JEDP. So I'm left wondering if it's a more recent concept held by most documentary hypothesis scholars now but not necessarily most or all of them since Wellhausen, or if it's always been there and we just need to improve the documentary hypothesis article. Nyttend backup (talk) 15:22, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From the beginning of modern biblical criticism, scholars have attempted to identify layers in each of the identifiable component sources from which the Torah in its present form was compiled (where the theories of what these components were evolved over time). As I understand it, the term "Holiness Code" or its synonyms "Code of Holiness" or "Law of Holiness", a term due to August Klostermann, is by itself merely a designation for the text of the chapters 17–26 of the Book of Leviticus, and can be used independent of any concept of biblical criticism. The idea that H was not merely part of P (originally thought to be the oldest layer, now generally assumed to be the youngest), but may even have been one of the sources for the compilation, arose much later than Hupfeld's 1853 P–E–J–D version of the documentary hypothesis. Many assumed originally that H could have been the core of P around which P grew. Now, the more common view appears to be that H was a late addition to P, but some scholars prefer to consider H not to have been part of P at all, so that we get a five-fold subdivison J–E–D–P–H of compilation sources. The discussion continues. --Lambiam 20:33, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

English/British vs. Russian in monarch's personal power?

At what points in English/British History (back to 927AD) did the Monarch/Leader (I'm including Cromwell) have the level of personal power that the Russian Czar had in the last half of the 19th Century? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naraht (talk • contribs) 18:21, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It depends. Are you talking legal authority, or are you talking ability to influence the course of the nation and the lives of his subjects? Prior to the Magna Carta, there were no legal limits on royal power (as far as I'm aware), so they could legally do whatever they wanted, but the English king was functionally constrained by the decentralised nature of feudalism and had to worry about the power of his barons, while Russian imperial power hadn't been checked by powerful boyars since the Westernising reforms of Peter I in the early 18th century. (I'm unclear whether Charles I of England complied with the Magna Carta while ruling as an absolute monarch, but since he reigned after centuries of some parliamentary involvement in government, his personal rule fell apart when his subjects rebelled against him, something that never happened on a comparable level in Russia. I can't think of any Russian monarch who faced a mass movement on the scale of the English Civil War; they faced uprisings by dissatisfied soldiers, small groups of localised revolutionaries, and alternate claimants to the throne, but not rebellions seeking to check the monarch's power; even the 1905 Russian Revolution wasn't as big, and the Russian Constitution of 1906 didn't check the Tsar to a comparable extent.) Religious differences between the early 13th century and the late 19th century was huge, as the Catholic Church exercised much more influence in mediaeval England than the Orthodox Church did in modern Russia — the Concordat of London involved King Henry I compromising with Pope Paschal II, and King John's conflict with Pope Innocent III ended with the King submitting to the Pope as his feudal overlord, while in late 19th-century Russia, the Most Holy Synod was functionally a government department, so it couldn't run contrary to the state. And finally, technological development enabled far greater state control of society; nothing like the Okhrana would have been possible before the Magna Carta. Nyttend backup (talk) 19:41, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone interested, there's a copy of Innocent's bull annulling Magna Carta on display right now in an exhibition at the British Library opposite St Pancras Station. Magna Carta itself is on display next to it. 80.44.95.69 (talk) 19:52, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, since you say "British" as well — there's never been anything even close in Great Britain. With one exception in 1708, the British monarch has never vetoed a parliamentary bill, let alone attempted to impose legislation without regard for Parliament (before 1708, the last veto was no later than 1702, when England and Scotland were still separate countries), thanks to the Bill of Rights 1689. Nyttend backup (talk) 20:01, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, Henry VIII of England was our last proper tyrant. By the time of the Stuart kings, Parliament and particularly the House of Commons, had become powerful enough to frustrate the monarch's plans if it chose; Charles's attempt to arrest the Five Members in 1642 is commemorated annually by Black Rod having the door of the Commons slammed in his face. Alansplodge (talk) 11:22, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

". . . his or her face.", to be pedantically accurate. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.59.177 (talk) 03:22, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, quite so. Sarah Clarke is the first female Black Rod since the post was founded in 1361. Alansplodge (talk) 10:41, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]