Humanities desk
< December 12	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 14 >

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.

December 13

Industrial Revolution

Did the lives of upper class change? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.116.189 (talk) 00:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your question, 74.14, is awfully general. By 'upper class' do you mean an aristocracy, or do you have some other definition in mind? Which country or part of the world are you interested in? Is your question about the changes experienced by landowners, or other sections among the social and political elite? Anyway, I'm sure you now understand some of the problems. Try to tailor your question a little and I will see what I can do. But if you simply want a general answer to a general question, then the lives of the upper class did change, and quite a bit! Clio the Muse (talk) 02:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might take a look at our article Upper class, which covers some of the differences in the meaning of the expression between the United States and Great Britain.

The "upper class" of the United States (essentially, the richest stratum of American society) was transformed by the Industrial Revolution. Before industrialization, the upper class of the United States consisted mainly of the owners of the largest plantations in Virginia and South Carolina, and to a lesser extent plantation owners in other southern states and the leading merchants in the northern ports. After industrialization, the upper class expanded greatly to include the leading owners of industrial firms and the leading bankers financing industrialization. One aspect of the American Civil War was a conflict between the old upper class of the South and the new upper class of the industrializing North.

In Britain, the expression "upper class" usually refers to the hereditary aristocracy, whose income came largely from the ownership of land and the collection of rents on that land. Clio knows much more about this than I do, but I will venture to say that members of the British upper class who happened to own land in and around Britain's expanding cities made out quite well from industrialization as their rents skyrocketed. British aristocrats whose holdings were mainly rural did less well, particularly after the repeal of the Corn Laws in 1849. Also, they faced competition for status with the wealthier members of what was known in Britain as the "middle class". These were industrialists, merchants, and bankers who would have been considered "upper class" in the United States but who had not been born into the aristocracy and therefore were not "upper class" in British terms. Members of the upper middle class since the 19th century have had incomes comparable to or greater than members of the upper class.

Finally, in material terms, the lives of the upper classes changed just as much as the lives of everyone else. With the spread of rail and steamship transport, they traveled more easily. As sanitary conditions improved for the rest of society, they improved for the upper classes all the more so. By the late 19th century, the spread of electricity and electric technologies changed the details of everyday life for the upper classes as it did for others. Marco polo (talk) 02:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediaeval Royal Descendents of the Byzantine Emperors

I know that nobody here or anywhere else can account for the descendents of the Julio-Claudians and any other West Roman dynasty, but what about the Byzantines? I know they intermarried with other Christian rulers in the West, but which emperors and which Western dynasties? I'm not interested in Latin Emperors, just the Greek speaking ones. Basically, I'm trying to trace the descent from Constantinople to royal families and individuals in the West. Would this include Constantine's blood, or did that get cut off from the later Byzantines? If it wasn't, then what sort of heritage did Constantine bring to the East, thus being present in the Western descendents of the Byzantine rulers? Thanks! 24.255.11.149 (talk) 01:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Constantine XI apparently didn't have any children (I was sure he did but it seems not!), but he had lots of nephews, and many of them married into other European dynasties. See Palaeologus dynasty for a start. One of them sold the title of Emperor, which lets various royal houses claim it today, although it is quite meaningless now. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't the Armenian dynasty intermarry quite a bit? Genealogics is sketchy with the Byzantine lines, so I was wondering about another source. 24.255.11.149 (talk) 01:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another source is the Comnenus dynasty, which intermarried with Germans, French, and crusaders. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I meant another genealogical resource. Thanks! 24.255.11.149 (talk) 03:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To give you just one concrete example, the blood of the Paleologues, the last Eastern Roman Imperial family, went into Russia. Vasili III of Russia was the son of Sophia Paleologue, the daughter of Constantine XI's brother Thomas Paleologue. Vasili III's son Ivan the Terrible was the first Russian Czar. Xn4 03:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly sure some of the Palaeologues ended up in Cornwall or Devon (don't think they had any royal descendents there) - can't put my hand on the reference at the moment tho'. DuncanHill (talk) 12:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a curious hint in Richard Grenville that a descendant retired to Clifton. SaundersW (talk) 13:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC) See also this [1] about Theodore Palaeologus in Cornwall. SaundersW (talk) 13:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't get that weblink to work at the moment, the Buildings of England has this in Landulph "In the south aisle an inscription records the death and burial of Theodore Palaeologus who died at Clifton in 1636 (a descendant of the medieval Chrisatian Emperors of Byzantium". DuncanHill (talk) 13:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC) Link working now - good one, thanks! DuncanHill (talk) 14:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel sure I originally read about this in one of Rowse's books - it's exactly the sort of detail that would appeal to him. DuncanHill (talk) 14:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a snippet in Sir Richard Grenville of the 'Revenge', tho' that refers to a John Palæologus (Chapter 2, The Marshal of Calais, page 38 of the Jonathan Cape paperback ed.). I'm sure he mentions this somewhere else too. DuncanHill (talk) 15:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zheng He

hello im doing a project and i need to know who is the author of the Zheng He page on wikepidia thanks moneybank23 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.147.14.126 (talk) 01:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles don't have authors. Usually, several people contribute, but they aren't authors, just contributors. When listing the sources for your project, you should use one of the formats listed in Citing Wikipedia. Marco polo (talk) 02:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Each Wikipedia page has a "Cite this article" button on the left. For Zheng He it is [2]. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 02:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did Germans in WWII believe they were fighting a defensive war?

An interesting claim was made in Gleiwitz incident article, but removed due to lack of references. Perhaps somebody can provide them of debunk the claim: "Against all the evidence, [due to Nazi propaganda success in portraying the Gleiwitz incident as the Polish attack] pro-nazi Germans believed they were fighting a justified defensive war until the last days of the Second World War." Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How on earth could this be quantified? People would believe, or disbelieve, as their wit and imagination allowed. I am not aware that the Gleiwitz incident figured in any degree at all in German consciousness, beyond the immediate circumstances of the day. By 1945, with the Soviets pouring over their eastern frontier, few Germans can have had much remembrance of Gleiwitz. Moreover, those still holding to the belief that their war was defensive must have possessed virtually limitless capacity for self-deception. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn’t one of the excuses Hitler used to justify invasion lebensraum (“living space”)? That’s not very defensive. --S.dedalus (talk) 04:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do think that Clio is correct - that there wasn't a bunch of Gallup Poll people telephoning Germans during WWII and asking them what their opinions were about the war and all. Heh. On the other hand, I do think from what I've read and studied about the last days of the Third Reich that the Nazi leadership had turned the war into a defensive one. I don't believe that all of the Nazi elites gave up complete hope until the very end when Hitler killed himself. Some were most likely holding out for some miracle weapon to be developed that would save the day - and the truth be told the Germans very nearly pulled this off! I can't remember where I read it, but it seems that somewhere I've read that had the Nazis been given just six more months that they might have been able to have developed the Atom Bomb. Be that as it may, if you look at the type of warfare being conducted during the Battle of Berlin, it's pretty obvious the Germans were throwing everything they had at the Russians in a last ditch attempt to stave off the wolf at the door. They were drafting young boys and old men and even young women into the Wehrmacht, putting uniforms on them, giving them rifles and a couple of hours' training, and then throwing their lives away against the approaching Red Army. That to me seems the hallmarks of a defensive war. What I'm saying here is that although the war was probably not begun as a defensive one on the part of the Germans, by the end I do believe that it had changed so that it was a defensive war. Saukkomies 05:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking more on this subject of the perception of the war's beginning among the Germans as being a defensive war or not, I might suggest that there would be other factors that would have had more of an effect on the average German than the Gleiwitz incident. More specifically, I'd refer to the large propaganda campaign that the Nazis were pushing all over Germany against the Poles and how they were supposedly oppressing the poor Germans who were isolated in the city of Danzig (after the war it was renamed Gdansk), which after WWI had been declared a free city under protection of the League of Nations. Danzig was an old Polish city originally, but in 1308 had been captured by the Teutonic Knights, who were German of course. It still was considered to be a German city, even though after WWI it was completely surrounded on its landward side by Poland. The Nazis made a deliberate attempt through propaganda to try to present the idea that the poor oppressed Germans in Danzig were being brutalized, raped, and mistreated by their Polish neighbors, and that the Danzig citizens yearned to be reunited with the German speaking people of the Third Reich. So part of the excuse of invading Poland in 1939 was to "liberate" Danzig. The Gleiwitz incident was just part of this larger plan. It was not the same thing as Pearl Harbor was to the Americans, but was more like what Bismarck did to provoke the Franco Prussian War in 1870 when he concocted a scheme that involved the interception of a phony message between French spies. The typical German would probably not be so impacted by the Gleiwitz incident, but if they'd been affected by anything that would have led them to view the beginning of WWII as a defensive war, it would have been due to the propaganda campaign that called for the "liberation" of the city of Danzig. Saukkomies 00:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taking up yet even more bandwidth, I was digging around and found some Nazi pre-war Anti-Polish propaganda films, some of which may be viewed online, at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. I searched their online catalog using "Danzig" as the keyword, and came up with 29 hits, some of which are indeed Nazi Anti-Polish propaganda films. Saukkomies 00:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to interrupt, but I was reading this info. and it's extremely interesting, but I'm noting a discrepancy (I think) in wikipedia, and am curious. The English site says: "This provocation was one of several actions in Operation Himmler", but the German site says: "....der bekannteste einer Reihe von Vorfällen (Unternehmen Tannenberg)".(ie: Operation Tannenberg, which is different according to English wikipedia). Actually, the Germans have no "Operation Himmler" site (which is unusual for 3rd Reich pages) - did they have a separate name for it? Could someone please clarify this different terminology?- Thanks.--AlexSuricata (talk) 14:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Unternehmen Tannenberg" seems to be the sole reference in German articles - even outside WP - in the Internet. This German term, however, refers less to the fake attacks under false flag than to the primary aim to annihilate the Polish intelligentsia as a means to squash all resistance. Of some 60,000 names accumulated more than 20,000 were shot in mass executions in the two months following the occupation of Poland. The term "Operation Himmler" presumably stems from the fact, that the SS commandos - basically squads of ruthless hitmen - used in these operations were directly under the command of the head of the SS (Reichsführer-SS) Heinrich Himmler. In hindsight, it was a "full dress rehearsal" for the grim future.--Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At least the Nazis tried to convince them Bromberger Blutsonntag.--Tresckow (talk) 01:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mary

How Bloody was Mary? Major Barbara (talk) 07:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well she killed all those microbes for a start [see Persecutions section]TheMathemagician (talk) 09:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was collateral damage, a side-effect of the vodka. More seriously, does no-one watch the article then? --Lambiam 11:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat bloody, though rather less so than her father Henry VIII. Of course, just about all royal governments in the sixteenth century (not to mention most other centuries) went in for liquidating political opponents (to use Lenin's word for it). And all of the Tudors were following a long tradition in the matter. However, as part of her restoration of the old religion Mary was persuaded to kill several leading members of the Church of England's clergy, including the famous Cranmer, Latimer and Ridley. With the later downfall of Catholicism in England, the treatment of Mary's religious victims as martyrs of Protestantism led to her being seen in terms of the utmost villainy - see, for instance, Foxe's Book of Martyrs. Xn4 17:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How bloody was Mary? For many generations the answer to this question would have been automatically sought in the Acts and Monuments, a particularly lurid account of the Marian Persecutions by John Foxe, better known as Foxe's Book of Martyrs. However, in practice, probably no more people died under Mary for political and religious reasons, than did in the reign of her father, Henry VIII, and her half-sister, Elizabeth I. What distingushes Mary's reign is the intensity of the executions, concentrated, as they were, in the brief period between February 1555 and November 1558. During this time more people died at the stake in England than at the hands of the Spanish Inqusition, and the chambre ardente, the body established in France by Henry II to root out heresy. Yet, it should be noted, that of all the cases detailed by Foxe, nearly 200 were listed by name and occupation only, with no supporting documentation. We cannot be absolutely certain, therefore, if these excutions were for political or for religious reasons, or for a mixture of both. Foxe's book, moreover, was conceived as an anti-Catholic, rather than an anti-Marian polemic, and paradoxically he does not blame the benighted Queen for the persecutions, but the Roman Church, especially the bishops, who are said to have had her under their influence.

Most English people of the day did not hate Mary for the restoration of Catholicism, and quite happily settled back to the old practices, free of the liturgical innovations introduced during the reign of her Protestant brother, Edward VI. However, they did not share the Queen's enthusiasm for mass persecution, they did not share her enthusiasm for the Papal hierarchy and, above all, they did not share her enthusiasm for the Spanish connection, expressed in her marriage to Philip II. All of this was to be used by Foxe and other Protestant propagandists to depict Catholicism as 'unpatriotic', as well as cruel. The burnings also left an abiding memory, rather than the persecution of religious dissidents as such. Under the Protestant ascendency that followed hanging, including drawing and quartering, was to be the preferred method, in opposition to 'Papist burnings'. Was Mary bloody? Yes, she was, though perhaps no more bloody than many of her fellow monarchs of the day. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that I have heard a very different history from Clio the Muse has spoken. I have heard that the English were quite happy with the status quo before Mary, and were desperately in search of what one could term a moderate between Catholicism and Protestantism (i.e., another Henry VIII). Mary was decidedly not moderate on the issue, and not only did she kill people who disagreed with her, but she persecuted them as well. Elizabeth, on the other hand, walked a perfect middle line. Thus Mary had the misfortune of being a strong ruler in a country known for its checks and balances (e.g., magna carta) and its religious enthusiasm and the desire to practice it, being stuck after a moderate king, killing several very high-profile religious figures, and drawing the English into an unwanted war. The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a version often taught in English schools. I'd say it's an improvement on the old version they used to teach ('the people rose up against Catholicism and demanded protestantism') which is still in evidence in some textbooks and informative public signs. Although I'm not sure I'd agree with the characterisation of Edward as a moderate king. Skittle (talk) 10:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone wishes to follow some of the leads I have given here-and reach a more balanced understanding of Mary's reign-then I would recommend David Loades' monograph The Reign of Mary Tudor as well his article The 'Bloody' Queen, which appears in March 2006 issue of the BBC History Magazine. There is also Parliament and Crown in the Reign of Mary Tudor by Jennifer Roach and The Reign of Mary Tudor: a Reassessment by Michael Hutchings in the March 1999 issue of History Today. History proceeds by evidence, not hearsay. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice answer, Clio. Thanks. Major Barbara (talk) 10:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Italian wars

Why did Florence break ranks and not join Pope Alexander's alliance against the French invasion of Italy in 1494? H W Waidson (talk) 12:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is purely a shot in the dark, meant only to perhaps provide a clue to the search. But I notice that Pope Alexander VI was a member of the Borgia family (his name given at birth was Rodrigo Borgia). The Cardinal-Deacon of Florence (which was the highest office in the Catholic Church in that city) at the time of Pope Alexander VI's election was Giovanni di Lorenzo de' Medici, who later himself became Pope Leo X in 1513. It is fairly common knowledge that there was an enormous feud that developed between the powerful Medici and Borgia families, and it seems from what I can tell that this feud started with the election of Pope Alexander in 1492. Cardinal Medici at the time was very apprehensive about giving the Papacy to Rodrigo Borgia, saying: "Now we are in the power of a wolf, the most rapacious perhaps that this world has ever seen. And if we do not flee, he will inevitably devour us all."

So perhaps, since the Medicis were from Florence, this is why that city did not join Alexander's cause against the French invasion of Italy... Just a guess, since I don't find it mentioned in my readings so far. Saukkomies 15:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is really quite simple: Florence was still tied emotionally to the old link with France, dating back to the struggle of the Guelph and Ghibelline in the high Middle Ages. When Pope Alexander was trying to construct his Holy League against the imperial ambitions of Charles VIII, Florence also happened to be under the influence of Savonarola, the Dominican priest, for whom the French king came as a fulfillment of all of his apocalyptic prophecies. For him Charles was the New Cyrus and Florence the New Jerusalem, 'richer, more powerful and more glorious than ever.' Falling under Savonarola's spell, the Florentines ejected their Medici ruler, and established their very own 'Christain republic' under the guidance of the prophet, hostile in every way to Alexander, Milan and the Holy League. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clio, you're the female equivalent of a Mensch (that's supposed to be a compliment, btw)! I am always impressed by your depth of knowledge. Saukkomies 08:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why, thank you, kind sir! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arise, Clio the Menschette. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suez Canal Sculptures - Two Monumental Harpies - Sphynx-Like Women

Back in the 1980s I was on a ship and we went through the Suez Canal (travelling towards India and away from Italy). Some ways into the voyage, on the starboard / right-hand side, on the bank of the Suez, there were these 2 monumental statues of Sphinx-like / Harpy-like women with some dedicatory plaque commemorating something. I have never been able to determine what these sculptures are called, when they date from (although probably 19th century as the sculptures (I think I remember) show the breasts of the sphinxes (maybe covered with hair like a figurehead on a ship) and seem more in line with French Egyptomania than anything Middle Eastern), or who made them or what they commemorate. They might have looked like the image here. Anyone know? Sorry so awkwardly worded. Saudade7 13:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That picture, of course, is of the Egyptian Bridge in Saint Petersburg! Xn4 01:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I said that they might have looked like the sculpture in the image. I found the picture on the Egyptian Bridge page! Saudade7 12:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article Sphinx has a brief note on the 'French sphinx' developed as part of the Mannerist vocabulary of the Fontainebleau school, and rehabilitated for the Louis XIV style, who reappears in Neoclassicism. --Wetman (talk) 12:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Wetman. Well these had to have been erected sometime after the canal was built in the 19th century, unless (and I doubt it) they were actually ancient.

In fact I am finding it very interesting that no one can answer this because I am sure that lots and lots of military / Naval people must have have seen these because they are usually the people who go through the Suez (I think), which means a) either military people don't care about art/monuments or b) they don't participate in the Wiki reference desk. I have asked this question a year ago on Yahoo answers and didn't get a reply there either. Strange. Saudade7 13:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can't answer it either, but you might be interested in the pavilion Isthme de Suez which was one of the "Egyptian Quarter"'s buildings at the Exposition Universelle in Paris (1867). The image shows two neoclassicist looking sphinxes, and Zeynep Çelik's Displaying the Orient - Architecture of Islam at Nineteenth-Century World's Fairs mentions "an avenue lined with sphinxes". Maybe some of these were later relocated to Port Said? ---Sluzzelin talk 22:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sluzzelin, I will definitely check that out. I like some of Zeynep Çelik's other essays. Take care Saudade7 00:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Driver's licenses

In case anyone was wondering, moving to another state and getting a driver's licnense in that state BEFORE your home state suspends your current license will effectively avoid getting one's license suspended, but it will piss off the Traffic Control Hearing lady. Note: The state can still suspend your right to drive in that state, but you are free to drive elsewhere in the country. You can beat the system! Mawahahahahahaha! XM (talk) 15:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A great relief, I am sure, to all us regulars! DuncanHill (talk) 15:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

News: There were unconfirmed reports yesterday that the United States is not the center of the world, so when writing about legal issues mention the part of the world that you are referring to. Mieciu K (talk) 15:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming one would want to drive in the USA I guess that's useful advice. Thanks. I guess Steve will have a nice take on it. Richard Avery (talk) 16:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This one is wondering whether you have learned that certain behaviour in a vehicle will lead to the revocation of one's licence, and while some people get a second chance, that does not make them eternally immune to the consequences of their actions. SaundersW (talk) 16:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm torn between fixing the header and naively wondering what this question has to do with SCUBA. --LarryMac | Talk 16:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed Diver's to Driver's...

There's a similar oddity about the state of affairs in Europe. Here in the UK, traffic offences [British spelling] lead to fines and penalty points on a driver's licence [another British spelling]. Depending on the seriousness of the offence, the points last for between four and eleven years, and if you get twelve points on your licence within three years, then you're disqualified. BUT at the moment, these penalty points don't cross national borders: that is, a French or Dutch driver who gets convicted of a motoring offence in the UK has penalty points added to a British driving licence which he or she hasn't got. Xn4 16:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should have told me that before I went to England ;) A ecis^Brievenbus 00:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm somewhat doubtful that he has. I strongly suspect we'll be hearing about wacky theories on how to beat speeding tickets in Texas next (and personally I find it a bit extreme to move US state just because you were foolish enough to get your driver's license suspended but anyway) Nil Einne (talk) 17:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful. Congratulations. Way to go on failing to take any responsibility for your actions. USA drivers must be thrilled to know that drivers who should be off the road as a danger to other road users are able to "beat the system". But what should I expect? "I'm alright Jack and fuck the rest of you." seems to be the order of the day. The prevalance of SUVs which are much more likely to kill pedestrians and drivers in smaller vehicles says a lot. Excuse me while I go puke.... Exxolon (talk) 19:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cranford

What is Gaskell trying to convey in the literary dispute between Captain Brown and Miss Jenkyns over the relative merits of Dickens and Dr Johnson? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.110.155 (talk) 18:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you could give a little more context, it would help. The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you watching the BBC serialisation? It's delicious, is it not? You must be aware that, for the ladies of Cranford, Miss Deborah Jenkyns in particular, Captain Brown represents the force for change in a settled world. His dispute with Miss Deborah over the relative merits of Dickens and Johnson serves to emphasise the distance between the old and the new; for Dickens is intented to stand for humour, modernity, vitality and the modern age, whereas Johnston is set up as the opposite; backward, formal and pompous, perhaps a comment on Cranford society itself. Not entirely fair to the old misanthrope, I agree, but that is the contrast that Elizabeth Gaskell intends. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another Soviet question

Thank you Clio and Saukommes for your answers to my question on the Gulag. I have one more Soviet question, and would be grateful for any leads you might be able to provide. In what way did the early Soviet regime adopt a novel policy towards the family? Were there changes in family law or campaigns to alter attitudes along the lines of Marxist theory? I have in mind the period of the New Economic Policy, before the adoption of agricultural collectivization and the Five Year Plan. Many thanks for your informed opinion. Zinoviev4 (talk) 19:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To oversimplify, Lenin made divorce very easy to obtain, and then Stalin later made it difficult again... AnonMoos (talk) 22:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a look at Orlando Figes' recently published, The Whisperers: Private Life in Stalin's Russia, Zinoviev, chapter one of which, Children of 1917, goes much of the way towards answering your question.

Family policy lay at the very centre of Bolshevik ideology, made all the more urgent by the partial retreat from wider goals during the period of the New Economic Policy. The words of Anatoly Lunacharsky, written in 1927, are particularly interesting in this regard, "The so-called sphere of private life cannot be allowed to slip away from us, because it is precisely here that the final goal of the Revolution is to be reached."

For the Bolsheviks, the family, as traditionally conceived, was considered to be socially harmful; the preserve of the private and the inward-looking; the conservative prop of religion, superstition and egoism. Even the love of parents for their own children was considered reprehensible, because it made them entirely self-regarding. 'Egotistical love' was to be replaced by 'rational love', with children being not an individual but a communal responsibility. In The ABC of Communism, published in 1919, Nikolai Bukharin and Evgenii Preobrazhensky argued that in a future society the word 'my' would no longer be used in reference to children.

In practical terms Bolshevik housing policy aimed at the disintegration of the traditional nuclear family, with the transformation of domestic space into communal living projects. Constructivist architects proposed the complete obliteration of the private sphere by the creation of 'commune housing', where everything, right down to underwear (yuck!), would be shared. Few of these were ever built, though the utopian nightmare behind the whole concept still survives today in Yevgeny Zamyatin's novel, We, first published in 1920. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]