Humanities desk
< May 19	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 21 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

May 20

Ex US Senator

I have been searching for weeks for the answer to this question and hope you can help.

I am looking for the name of a Senator who was an ob/gyn doctor before entering the Senate. He supported term limits strongly and imposed on himself a two term limit. He left after his two terms and went back to his practice after he left the senate. I think he was a Republican and was from the north central part of the country. I not sure of that fact.

Thank you

Elizabeth McLeod

Sounds like Bill Frist of Tennessee, although he was not an OB/Gyn. Cheers Geologyguy 00:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the official website of the US Senate, forty-seven physicians have served in the Senate; I can't, though, think of anyone who well fits your description, and I don't find any such person on the list either. :( Tom Coburn, FWIW, is the only ob/gyn-Senator in the 110th Congress, and he did hold himself to a three-session term limit when he was in the US House, after his service in which he returned to private medical practice; he happens, though, to hail from Oklahoma. Joe 03:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cardinal Richelieu

I have not long finished reading The Three Musketeers, with its depiction of Richelieu as a rather sinister and malevolent character. I was wondering how this compares with the real man? 80.177.38.137 03:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As it happens, our article on Richelieu is amongst Wikipedia's best work; the legacy section thereof may be especially useful (for my part, I would say that Richelieu was surely more nuanced than the character presented in The Three Musketeers but that, on the whole, he's probably not the best example of a Cardinal whom one might find). Joe 04:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are people like Richelieu-Cardinal Wolsey in England is another such-who were born to be politicians rather than churchmen; men, in other words, who are in the church through circumstances, rather than design. Richelieu stands astride his age like a giant, a man who put the interests of the state before that of his class, and the interests of his nation before that of his church. He was not the model of Machiavelli's The Prince; he was the Prince. Inevitably such men make enemies rather more than they make friends, and even Louis XIII, who was so dependent on his great minister, is said to have expressed some relief when he died in December 1642. It was not just the king who was pleased by his departure. According to Father Griffet, writing in 1768, the Cardinal "...was disliked by the people and I have known old men who could still remember the bonfires that were lit in the provinces when the news of his death was received." Cardinal de Retz claimed that Richelieu had created "within the most lawful of monarchies the most scandalous and most dangerous tyranny which may ever have ensalved the state." In his 1712 history on the reign of Louis XIII Michael Le Vasor wrote "I can look only with horror on a prelate who sacrifices the liberty of his fatherland and the peace of Europe to his ambition." This charge against the Cardinal-warmonger was later to make an appearance in Voltaire's Le Siècle de Louis XIV, where he says "...there was fighting since 1635 because Cardinal Richelieu wanted it in order to make himself necessary." For Montesquieu Cardianl Richelieu was, quite simply, a 'wicked citizen.'

Of course, none of this is fair or objective, and most of his later critics underestimate the extent to which Habsburg power, concentrated in Spain and the Empire, was a considerable danger to the security of France, especially after the onset of the Thirty Years War, which the Cardinal viewed in political rather than religious terms. But the image of the malevolent and scheming churchman made its way down the ages, emerging in the Romantic movement of the nineteenth century, in which the Cardinal is relentlessly vilified by poets and dramatists of all sorts. In a sense he became, in post-Revolutionary France, the archetype of all that was wrong with the ancien regime. In Cinq-Mars, Alfred de Vigny's novel of 1826, Richelieu's attack on the nobility is blamed for all of France's subsequent ills. It was in this form that the Cardinal-mad, bad and dangerous to know-made his way across the English Channel, where Vigny's novel inspired Edward Bulwer-Lytton to write a play, called Richelieu or the Conspiracy. Thus it was that the Cardinal, both sinister and witty, made his way on to the English theatre, one of the great stage villains of the age, depicted by Henry Irving, among others. Though barely aware of his existence before, English people discovered in the Red Eminence qualities that made him 'the man you love to hate.' And so it went on, back to France and The Three Musketeers, and back again to England in Stanley Weyman's popular novel of 1896, Under the Red Robe. From movie, to comedy, and even in children's cartoons, Richelieu lives. Better, I suppose, to be misunderstood and parodied than forgotten. Clio the Muse 23:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reynald de Chatillon

Why was he so hated by the saracens? Serendipity two 05:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raynald of Chatillon article sounds like a good place to look for the answer ;) Dr_Dima.

The article on Raynald does not fully explain his true significance, and just why he was such a figure of fear and hatred for Muslims, who known him better by the name of Arnat of Kerak. The Muslim historian, Ibn al-Athir, refers to him as "a violent and most dangerous enemy of Islam." Even today he has some significance, and you will find him in statue form in Damascus, the capital of Syria, together with Saladin, his nemesis. Raynald did much to colour Muslim opinion of the whole Crusading movement. If the fall of the Kingdom of Jerusalem can be attributed to a single man, then Raynald has better right to that claim than any other individual. His ruthlessness, unscrupulousness, opportunism and brutality were to provoke Saladin into a furious offensive against the Crusader kingdom, that led directly to his victory of the Horns of Hattin.

It is important to understand that the enthusiasm for Crusading in the Middle Ages often owes as much, if not more, to greed and opportunism as it did to religious faith. The path to the Holy Land was the path often taken by the 'poor cousins' and the second sons, those who could expect no inheritance at home, and would only be able to make their way in the world by the practice of arms. In essence these men were little more than freebooters, and Raynald was the greatest freebooter of them all. He served the greater cause only as and when it suited him, and was quite prepared to attack fellow Christians for the sake of personal gain, fully demonstrated by his onslaught on Byzantine Cyprus. To finance the latter expedition he even extorted money from Aimery of Limoges, the elderly Patriarch of Antioch. According to William of Tyre, the chronicler of the Crusades, Aimery, was stripped naked, whipped, his head smeraed with honey to attract insects and then he was left chained in the open under the hot sun!

In November 1160 Raynald set out to seize the herds of Armenian and Syrian Christians, only to be taken prisoner by the Muslim Governor of Aleppo. He was only ransomed after fifteen years, emerging from his dungeon with a hatred of Islam far in excess of any love he had for Christianity. Indeed, there is very little evidence that Raynald had faith of any kind. Soon after his release married Stephanie of Milly, heiresss of the dukedom of Outrejourdain, the easternmost part of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, which dominated the caravan routs from Egypt to Syria from the castles of Shaubak and Kerak. It was from this point that he became a real nightmare for the Muslims.

By the 1170s there was a mood of relaxed co-existence between the Crusader states and their Muslim neighbours. Many of the Christian lords had adopted an oriental way of life, and were even viewed by the Muslims as possible allies in their own internecine struggles. But Raynald upset this delicate political balance. He was to launch attack after attack, chiefly aiming at plunder and mayhem. It is even suggested by Ibn Jubair that in his pirate raids in the Red Sea, Raynald intended, amongst other things, to make off with the body of the prophet Mohammed and hold it for ransom at Kerak. Peaceful co-existence was at an end, and Saladin took an oath to kill Raynald, whose offenses were made even worse when he tried to capture the Sultan's sister in 1187, breaking a truce to attack a cravan. Saladin was left with no option but to preach Jihad against the whole Crusader Kingdom. In this Raynald had encompased his own death and the fall of Jerusalem. Clio the Muse 01:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eyemouth disaster

Is there any more information on the Eyemouth Disaster. The Wikipedia page is very poor. SeanScotland 05:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The google search (http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=%22eyemouth+disaster%22&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8) produces links that have books (if you are wishing to read up more), but also includes quite a lot of links that look like they might add more too. If you find anything further that is referencable your adding it to the existing article would help make Wikipedia better for the next person hunting for details about the disaster. ny156uk 08:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can give you one or two extra pieces of information, Sean, but you should really refer to Black Friday by Peter Aitchison for a full account of Britain's worst fishing disaster.

Eyemouth, a little port situated on the headlands of Berwickshire in south-east Scotland, was renowned for the courage and tenacity of its fishing fleet, men who had a reputation for putting to sea in conditions that made all others cling to the safety of harbour. But the storms of 1881 were particularly bad, and the fleet had been confined to harbour for days. Finally, at dawn on 14 October, conditions seemed to be improving and the little boats all put to sea, despite the fact that the pierhead barometer signalled that the weather was about to change for the worse. The fishermen were willing to take the risk, which is precisely why the Eyemouth fleet enjoyed such a high reputation, and why the port had become so successful as a base for the white fishing industry over the previous decades. The reputation of the local fleet for daring and profit had caused many migrant fishing families to settle there in the 1860s and 1870s, putting an extra strain on the tiny, inadequate harbour. For once the gamble failed: a terrible gale grew in intensity, swamping the boats. Almost all the dead were from Eyemouth, which in a tiny community, magnified the scale of the disaster. The dead left behind 90 widows of 300 children. The tragedy aroused the pity of the nation. A relief fund was set up, which drew in more than £50,000, a considerable sum for the day. Even Queen Victoria donated £100.

There is, however, another dimension to this story, which helped to contribute to the story of the lost fleet. Eyemouth was the 'poor cousin' of the Scottish ports. Ports like Wick, Fraserburgh, Anstruther and Dunbar had all improved their harbour facilities with the aid of grants from the Fishery Board and the Whitehall-based Public Works Loan Board. Eyemouth, despite the fact that it was the base for Scotland's most successful fleet, received not a penny in state support because the harbour trust was bankrupt, and the fishermen in debt to the Church of Scotland. The Church still had a right to a tithe, a full tenth of the fishermen's incomes, though similar demands had long disappeared elsewhere. This was the cause of much friction in the community and bitter legal disputes. It was only resolved finally when the Church agreed to surrender its rights for a one off payment of £2000, not finally paid off until 1878. During this time, while ports elsewhere were able to introduce harbour improvements, Eyemouth's remained wholly inadequate for the size of its fleet. The fishermen were compelled to do as they had always done: take to sea in all weathers with no safe harbour run to if things went wrong. The boats which tried to make it to the harbour on that October day were swamped on the rocks which served to guard the bay, in sight of their families standing on the shore. A local journalist noted "The terrible sight created a profound impression on the shore, where now women and children realising the perilous position of husbands and sons and brothers still at sea, were running about and weeping in wild distraction." It was a tragedy whose causes were human as well as natural. Clio the Muse 11:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clio, you have no right to be English. I have adopted you, so you are now a honorary Scot, a great privilege! SeanScotland 13:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

British merchants in St. Petersburg

I'm looking for some information on the British merchant community on St. Petersburg before the revolution. Any ideas? Fred said right 08:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There may be some leads here. I think it's likely the Anglican church was central to the pre-revolution British community, as it was in Moscow, but info is scarce on the church website. You may find scraps in Charles Baird (engineer).--HJMG 23:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is actually quite a lot of detailed information of this subject, and I can supply you with a range of references, should you wish to take the matter further. But here, in any case, is a brief summary.

English trade contacts with Russia go as far back as 1553, when the Edward Bonaventure sailed into the White Sea. Before long the port of Archangel became the main point of a thriving commercial exchange between both nations, and in London the Muscovy Company was established. With the foundation of St. Petersburg early in the eighteenth century merchants based in Archangel and Moscow made their way steadily to the new capital on the River Neva. As the new city grew British traders acquired some of the finest properties, so much so that by the end of the reign of Catherine the Great the area between Senate Square and the New Admiralty Canal was known as the English Embankement. The mansions on the Embankment became the home of a number of important business people and other British residents, including Edward Cazlet of the Petersburg International Commercial Bank, Margaret Chamberlain, whose father had established a large cotton printing and dye works near the city in 1753, and Thomas Warre, a partner in a leading trading house. There also was to be found John Rogerson, a Scotsman who was the physician to Catherine the Great, and later Sir James Wylie, another Scot, who was doctor to Tsar Alexander I.

The 1734 Anglo-Russian Commercial Treaty extended certain privileges to the Petersburg community, which, when allied with the importance of Russian iron, tallow and naval stores for the British economy, ensured a vigorous and expanding trading environment. It was even suggested that for Britain the Russian trade was more important than that with the 'whole of the tropics.' Edmund Burke, the great Whig politician and writer, considered Russia to be "the most useful ally Britain had in the commercail sense." Because of this the British government maintained a close interest in the trade, and the Russia Company, which succeeeded the old Moscovy Company, had much political influence. In the 1790s the Company even managed to campaign successfully against the policy of Prime Minister William Pitt to force the Russians to give up the Ochakov Fortress, captured from the Ottoman Turks.

Although the privileges granted in 1734 wre eroded somewhat by subsequent commercial traties in 1766, 1793 and 1797, this had little effect on the general prosperity of the Petersburg community, which reached new heights towards the end of the century. Responding to French complaints about trade privileges granted to the British, Prince Potemkin responded "What would you like us to do, to behave in a manner detrimental to the needs of our merchants and landowners? The demand of the English for our goods is very great but ours for theirs is insignificant..." Russia continued to benefit from the inflow of English gold, as well as shipping services provided by British merchants, who were also the main suppliers of insurance and credit on the domestic market for goods destined for export. For the British commercial returns could reach as high as fifteen per cent, making life in Petersburg highly agreeable. James Brogdan, writing in the 1780s, found the life in Russia "in regard to variety of eating and drinking, far superior to the common made of living in England." Towards the middle of the nineteenth century a German observer commented sourly on the lifestyle and status of the English in the Russian capital;

...they have their own church and despising all other nations, but most especially their protectors, the Russians, they live shut up by themselves, drive English horses and carriages, go bear hunting on the Neva, as they do tiger hunting on the Ganges, disdain to lift their hats to the Emperor himself and proud of their indispensablness and the invincibility of their fleets, defy everybody, find fault with everything they see, but are highly thought of by the government and by all, because they think highly of themselves, and reside chiefly in the magnificent quay named after them.

Changing patterns of trade, growing competition from other nations, and the shift towards conducting trade from importing rather than exporting centres, brough a gradual decline to the merchant princes of Petersburg. Some held on to their position by diversifying into the Russian manufacturing sector, including Alexander Wilson, the British director of the Imperial Aleksandrov Manufacturing Plant. The Cazlet family acquired interests in tallow processing, as well as the Russian Steam Oil Mill Company and the Kalinkin Brewery. However, the heyday of the Petersburg community was over, so much so that James Wishaw was later to write in his memoirs "The English colony (especially those in society) was a large one and could dine out practically every night without meeting the same family twice. It was to decline all too rapidly in this respect, for the senior residents either retired or died off, and by the time of the Great War very few of the old families reamained." The coup de grâce was delivered in 1917. Clio the Muse 00:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! What can I say? A mere 'thank you' does not seem enough. I think you are wonderful, Clio! Fred said right 18:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Third Reich

Where did this term come from? 86.132.3.241 08:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The basic explanation is found in our article on Nazi Germany. Pastordavid 08:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(after e.c.) Reich simply means empire here, and the information under Third_Reich#Names explains the choice of name: Drittes Reich/Third Reich was selected in order to connect the German empire the Nazis wished to forge to the two older German empires, the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation (15th/16th century - 1806) and the Second German Empire (1871 - 1918). The first time the term was used in a post World War I context seems to have been by Dietrich Eckart in 1919. Arthur Moeller van den Bruck later wrote Das Dritte Reich in 1923. In 1939, the Propagandaministerium "advised" the media to stop using the term Third Reich because of parodized usage of "The Fourth Reich" by opponents and critics (suggesting the "Thousand-Year Empire" might, in fact, not last that long, which it didn't). Literal translation of the ministry's reasoning: "The far-reaching development that has taken place since then doesn't meet this historically derived title anymore." The 1943 edition of Georg Büchmann's "Winged Words" stated: "It wasn't so much the national circles themselves as their opponents that used the word more and more frequently, and with a sneering undertone at that." (From de:Drittes Reich) ---Sluzzelin talk 08:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following dialogue from Casablanca between Captain Renault and Major Strasser illustrates the point (and then some):

Captain Renault: "We are very honored tonight, Rick. Major Strasser is one of the reasons the Third Reich enjoys the reputation it has today."

Major Strasser: "You repeat *Third* Reich as though you expected there to be others!"

Captain Renault: "Well, personally, Major, I will take what comes."

From imdb.com ---Sluzzelin talk 10:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Publishing in the Roman world

There was no printing in the Roman world, but my reading of Pliny the Younger's letters hints at a culture which could perhaps in some sense be called publishing - he writes about a readership for his writings, and if I recall correctly, reflects on the decision to circulate documents or not. Can anyone recommend a source of more information on this topic - to what extent were manuscripts copied and circulated, and on what basis? I am intrigued by the fact that a Google search on "Publishing in the Roman world" as a phrase returns no results, and ""manuscript circulation" "roman world" returns just seven.

Jphollow 10:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't answer your question, but if you Google "Roman empire" instead of "Roman world" you will get a lot more hits. Also bear in mind that the idea of publishing (which literally means to make public) has only existed since the advent of printing. Before that time, manuscripts were indeed copied by hand but weren't considered public. In any case, the public could not read.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is only a partial answer, based more on general knowledge than the specifics of the issue. We know that important Romans (like Pliny) employed a scribe, to which they would dictate their letters and other scribenda. The scribe would record this on a wax tablet or cera, which allowed for easy corrections. For many purposes, this was the final form. For a book, this wouldn't do, of course; if you wanted the text to be preserved for an extended period, you needed to have it copied to papyrus, or even better, parchment. Neither was cheap, and the latter was rather expensive. Since one of Caesar's objectives in writing his Commentarii de Bello Gallico was to present himself as the powerful figure in Roman leadership, he must have ordered more than just a few copies made, presumably at great cost to himself. Documents could further be circulated by arranging the physical movement of a single copy from one person to the next according to some roster. In general, I suspect though that most copies were made upon the request of the person wishing to possess a copy. --Lambiam ^Talk 15:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From here:

When the Romans "published" a book, they went to a place where dozens or hundreds of literate slaves would create copies one at a time with pens. Both the citizens and conquered slaves were well educated. Greek slaves worked as scribes, translators, and teachers. Romans loved to read. Great libraries existed adjacent to the public baths. Patrons could read in leisure or borrow great works of science and literature.

There was a thriving publishing industry. Manuscript sellers were in the market place for those who wanted to own personal copies. First editions of one thousand copies were commissioned and best sellers sold over one hundred thousand copies in the arcade book stalls. But, each copy had to be hand copied with pen and ink.

Gdr 16:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While this may be so, we don't know on what the author of these lines – who appears to have a religious agenda in which an overestimate of the number of copies would not hurt their argument – bases these claims. --Lambiam ^Talk 16:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rome even had "newspapers" - the actae, hand-written broadsheets which discussed the political and social events of the day. Though government-run. Corvus cornix 19:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You get a lot more hits on publishing "roman empire", but very few of them are about the concept in question. I am raising the question of whether there was a concept that we could reasonably call publishing, in the Roman world, prior to the invention of printing. I am genuinely ignorant but I suspect there is an interesting seam of information here, and I thank Lambiam for the response. Jphollow 21:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Empire

Hi there, I got four questions about Ancient Rome.

1. Explain the role of each member of the Second Triumvirate and what happened to him?

2. How did the arts (literature, art, and ) help to glorify and legitimize Augustus's position of authority as emperor of Rome?

3. How were Roman amphitheatres similar to and different from today's stadiums?

4. What geographical factors would have protected the Eastern Roman Empire in the fifth century CE?

Thanks

Those are great questions. If I was a teacher of histoty, I might set them as homework. If you use the search box in the panel on the left, you can find some answers to your questions and other interesting material on Wikipedia. --Lambiam ^Talk 15:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's how it works: you come, you search, you answer. (Dang, I wish I could translate that into Latin.) Clarityfiend 18:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ahem, pardon my butchering a beautiful language) vos adveho , vos quaero , vos refero. Pastordavid 19:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let someone who actually knows Latin do it: venis, quaeris, respondes —Keenan Pepper 21:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the immortal words of the Latin Wikipedia's page on "Latinitas", "Lingua Latina haud est simplex. Machinae interpretes vix possunt recte Latinam ex aliis transferre." (The Latin language is hardly simple. Machine translators cannot translate Latin from other languages properly.) —Keenan Pepper 21:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thank you ... much better. And, as an amateur translator (but obviously not of Latin), I stand properly chastized for letting a machine do my work. ;) Thanks. Pastordavid 22:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not as alliterative as Caesar's version, but nice to know. Thanks. I think I'll add that to my user page. (Is it responde for the first person?) Clarityfiend 23:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I answer" is respondeo. Responde is the imperative ("Answer!"). —Keenan Pepper 05:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Liaoyang

Your article on the Battle of Liaoyang is very sketchy. Is there any more information on this crucial encounter in the Russo-Japanese War? General joffe 20:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For "Battle of Liaoyang", Google returns 13,600 links.[1]

If you have the time and interest, please consider editing the article to add information on what you find. If you don't know how do this, please check the info I just placed on your talk page. Please be careful about copyrights and make sure you add verifiable sources. Please leave a note here, or on my talk page, or at the newcomer's help desk if you have any problems. Thanks. -Arch dude 23:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commodity fetishism

Is commodity fetishism related to the concept of veblen goods? --Anakata 20:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They're definitely related, though I think you might be able to argue that they are somewhat opposites in a sense. Commodity fetishism is giving values to good beyond their exchange-value (so to speak). Veblen goods require assigning values based upon the exchange-value. In the former the values are separated from the exchange-value; in the latter they are directly a result of it. --24.147.86.187 23:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Killed rappers

Is there a list anywhere on the internet of all the rappers that were killed??

Thank you 77.105.44.141 22:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Our Category:Murdered entertainers is made up mostly of rappers, although sadly many rappers who may not have reached the mainstream are killed in gang wars that may never even be reported. Laïka 11:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]