Humanities desk
< October 7	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 9 >

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.

October 8

Felix Mendelssohn's The Resurrection

Hi, My father always throws on at me on his wish list for birthday. I'm looking for this piece of music, but cannot find it. I've researched Mendelssohn and can only assume that he rewrote a piece from Bach. Can you help? Any information would be helpful for me to find this piece of music! 151.204.12.142 02:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)Ron[reply]

I know of no piece of that name that Mendelssohn wrote. He did "resurrect" Bach's St Matthew Passion in 1829, by giving it its first performance since Bach's death 79 years earlier. The Passion concerns the events leading up to the Resurrection of Jesus. Is your father a practical joker? Is he confusing Mendelssohn’s "Reformation" Symphony (No. 5) with Mahler's "Resurrection" Symphony (No.2) - it does happen, even among experts (see the correction at the bottom). -- JackofOz 02:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Got a reply from the program director of a classical station - resurrection is a nickname for the Reformation Symphony,(No 5), as you predicted. After listening to the piece on the radio, they referred to the symphony as the Resurrection. How confusing is that? At least now I have a title to go on. Thanks again! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.204.12.142 (talk) 03:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I must say I've never heard the Reformation Symphony nicknamed the "Resurrection" Symphony before. It really has nothing to do with any resurrection. -- JackofOz 06:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

siblings

i was wondering is a step sister/brother still my sister/brother legally if our parents get a divorce in the state of maryland

I'm also wondering this (but in a more general basis, not just the state of Maryland). And, please, notice this is not a request for legal advice. --Taraborn 09:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, I think it may depend on a number of factors. Did the law consider your step-sibling to be your sibling before your parents divorced, and if so, why would their divorce change that relationship? If the non-biological parent never formally adopted your step-sibling, then he/she would not necessarily be your sibling at law, but simply the child of your step-parent. Or it may depend on whether a family unit can be demonstrated. Family relationships are often treated differently from law to law even within the same jurisdiction, and maybe it's not possible to give a categorical Yes or No answer to the question. This is terribly vague, I know, but the question is somewhat imponderable without more specific information. (And this is most definitely not legal advice.) -- JackofOz 13:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are various dictionaries of words and phrases which have been judicially reviewed, you should try checking any of those you can find in or through your library, but I think the question would only really arise at law if there were legal provisions to do with step-brothers and step-sisters. I can't think of any (for instance, I don't know of anywhere where such relations by marriage feature in the law of intestacy). If any kind of legal instrument referred to step-brothers and step-sisters, then it would be usual to define the term at the same time. Xn4 16:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello (anonymous and Taraborn). It's a good thing neither of you is asking for legal advice, because on these facts, as JackofOz already intimated, you won't get any. The facts aren't specific enough. The definition varies dramatically depending on the relevant area of law. Out of the litany of potentially relevant practice areas, Trusts and Estates, Property, Contracts, Constitutional law, Negligence, and even the rules of Evidence and Civil procedure can involve matters whose resolution hinges on the definition being sought here.

Just to cite a simple example, consider the scenario of intestate succession, (already hinted at by User:Xn4). Different jurisdictions answer the question differently, and different circumstances (such as whether a parent supported a minor child until a certain age, or whether that parent abandoned the child) will influence the determination as well. (See also, Per stirpes, Per capita, summary of Maryland's intestate succession laws).

Remember, this "simple" example is just dealing with intestate succession, which is just one sub-branch within the practice area of Wills and Estates. There are entirely unrelated practice areas and sub-branches that haven't even been addressed here. The point should be pretty clear: the only definitive answer to your question is ... "it depends". dr.ef.tymac 20:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lyrics for Mata Oh Ah Eh.

Can anybody please provide lyrics for the above mentioned song by Dr Alban (or Alben?). Googled for it but couldnt find it!

Regards, Nikhil. Illogical Programmer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.54.180 (talk) 05:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might find more specialist help at the Entertainment desk. --Dweller 13:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"We're sorry but the artist has decided not to disclose the lyrics for this song." [1] SaundersW 20:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<whatever>-stan countries

Why do so many countries in Central Asia follow that name pattern? Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Afganistan, Pakistan... --Taraborn 09:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because -stan is a Persian-language suffix roughly meaning "place" (Persian was spoken in Central Asia before the Turkic languages). There's an article on -stan. AnonMoos 09:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Think of it as analogous to the -land suffix (Iceland, Finland, Scotland, England, etc.) GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 12:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And what does 'ia' mean then? Are those cowboy countries? Or a lot of donkeys there perhaps? DirkvdM 18:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the OED, "in names of countries, as Australia, Tasmania, Rhodesia," -ia comes from Latin and Greek i- (stem or connective vowel) + -a (nominative ending of feminine nouns of first declension.). The -a suffix by itself occurs in placenames too, such as Africa, Asia, Corsica, Malta, etc. The OED further points out that "Latin names of places remain unchanged, except when the French form has been adopted, as in Italia, Italie, Italy," for example. I'm not sure what all this says about what -ia means exactly. That countries are female? Pfly 03:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slavery in Brazil

In what way did black slavery contribute towards the shaping of Brazil? TheLostPrince 12:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read History of slavery in Brazil?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was a time, in the seventeenth century, when their were more people of African than European descent in Brazil, so much so that Antonio Vieira, a Jesuit missionary, said of the country that it had the "Body of America and the soul of Africa." From this you can take it that the general contribution of black people to the development of Brazil was immense. In all, almost four million came from Africa, an influx that continued even after the government abolished the slave trade in 1850. Africans were to be found in every branch of the economy, not just in the coffee and sugar plantations, but in a whole variety of skilled urban trades. The discovery of diamond deposits in the early eighteenth century created a demand for Africans skilled in mining and metallurgy, many of whom came from the Gold Coast or Dahomey. When the Brazilian Empire was created in 1822 some 75% of Brazil's total population was of African origin. Most were free by this time, though there were still 20% with slave status. In 1844 the German naturalist, Karl Friedrich Philip von Martens, wrote a prize-winning essay which focused on the contributions of the African diaspora to the overall develpment of Brazil. This theme was later taken up by Silvio Romero, who wrote "We owe much more to the Negro than the Indian; he entered into all aspects of our development." Clio the Muse 01:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

book - runes etc

Can anyone recommend a good book for pre-christian runic inscriptions, carvings, and rock carvings/pictograms. Stuff like this runestone etc. Preferably european though anything central asian would also be good. Colour pictures or high quality monochrome rather than sparsley illustrated. Also please no 'coffee table paganism' stuff - lots of 'proper' background, or research, or a 'text book'. I'd really like to find one that covers much or most of the available material if this is possible. Stuff covering christian/pagan themes together is also of interest..

Also any good sources for carvings that give mythological stories in pictorial form (again eurasian).

I'm looking for things that have the semblance of a story rather than the hunters pictures/deer/dead sheep found in mesolithic petroglyphs.

Thanks if you can help.87.102.17.101 14:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder whether any of the books listed in the Runic alphabet article might help you? For instance,

Blum, Ralph (1932) The Book of Runes - A Handbook for the use of Ancient Oracle : The Viking Runes, Oracle Books, St Martin's Press, New York, ISBN 0-312-00729-9
MacLeod, Mindy, and Bernard Mees (2006) Runic Amulets and Magic Objects, The Boydell Press, Woodbridge
Odenstedt, Bengt (1990) On the Origin and Early History of the Runic Script, Uppsala, ISBN 9185352209
Page, R.I. (1999) An Introduction to English Runes, The Boydell Press, Woodbridge ISBN 0-85115-946-X
Spurkland, Terje (2005) Norwegian Runes and Runic Inscriptions, Boydell Press ISBN 1-84383-186-4
Williams, Henrik (1996) The Origin of the Runes, Amsterdamer Beiträge zur älteren Germanistik

All of these sound as if they might be some use. Xn4 15:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the ancient Roman author Tacitus refers to a Germanic practice of divination by means of marks on wood (which may or may not be runes), but no specific details of any early historical use of runes in divination have come down to us, and "systems" which attribute abstract philosophical or occult meanings to specific runes cannot be supported by any solid early historical evidence... AnonMoos 19:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above might be useful - (though the first one looks a bit 'new agey' to me), however it would help me a lot if anyones read any of these and could say if they are what I was after.87.102.17.101 19:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Boydell Press publish hardcore academic stuff. Those will be in-depth, and may assume a lot of prior knowledge, same for the Henrik Williams book. The Rune stone article cites two books, one of which looks like it might be interesting: Sven Birger Fredrik Jansson, Runes In Sweden. Best of all, you can read a free dissertation on early runes, Looijenga, Jantina Helena, Runes around the North Sea and on the Continent AD 150-700; texts & contexts. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason that link's not working for me.87.102.18.10 18:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It works for me. Perhaps the top-level page and then search for "runes" will work? Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Renaissance

Did the Renaissance had a significant impact upon European means of thinking which greatly affected and transformed the Catholic Church? and what was it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.128.175 (talk) 15:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For a start, visit Renaissance, which has been listed as a History good article. Xn4 15:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't help really. Where is it in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.128.175 (talk) 15:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Renaissance: Religion is the section most relevant to your question. It also refers you onwards to Reformation and Counter-Reformation. Xn4 15:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might also take a look at Renaissance humanism and Catholic Reformation. They cover this more specifically. Marco polo 15:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As well as Reformation, the significant English Reformation and Holy_Roman_Empire#Crisis_after_Reformation, notably the Sack of Rome (1527), which had a huge impact on papal policy then and thereafter. This section is also right up your street. --Dweller 16:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Renaissance didn't have an effect on the European way of thinking, it was a change on the European way of thinking. DirkvdM 18:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Society

How was European society different from western society today? and what are the three examples of that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.128.175 (talk) 15:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you left out the bit of the homework question that specified a period. Either that or it makes no sense, "European society" overlapping hugely with "western society" today. --Dweller 16:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The three examples? Surprise your teacher by giving four. Or five. Or ten. But don't over-exert yourself. :) DirkvdM 18:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The three examples of how European society differs from Western society today are:

#1. Their law that even death won't get you out of going to court

#2. The danger of witches

#3. Their magnificent hats

--Sean 15:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Machiavelli's Prince

Was the morality of Machiavelli's The Prince a product or rejection of Renaissance Culture? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.128.175 (talk) 15:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read our articles, or indeed the book The Prince, by Machiavelli? --Dweller 16:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Insofar as this perceptive little essay is based on a realistic appreciation of forms of political practice, independent of received wisdom and theological precepts, it is perhaps the most brilliant expressions of Renaissance thought. There was nothing new in The Prince; it had all happened before; the cynical and brutal manipulation of power was part of European history. What was new was Machiavelli's honesty, his willingness to see through hypocrisy and false conceits; to describe politics as it was practiced rather than as some abstract Aristotelian or Platonic model. If properly read it is acutely funny, one of the wittiest satires ever written about politics; a satire on the unruly and selfish behaviour of leaders, kings and princes of all kinds. Or, if not that, it is offered as a kind of mirror, showing an image of power, and the misuse of power, from which all those with any sense of morality should recoil! Or he produced the book because this is what he knew that people like Lorenzo de Medici would want to hear, a justification of themselves. However it is read it is a little work of great value. So says The Princess! Clio the Muse 02:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Enlightened despot?

How enlightened was Catherine the Great? 86.147.191.17 15:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Catherine the Great. --Dweller 16:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Englightened in some ways, and not in others. (Sorry, I'm getting tired!) If you need any more detailed information please come back to me. In the meantime, I would suggest that you read Catherine the Great by Virginia Rounding, or Catherine the Great by Simon Dixon, the latter for preference, if you are interested specifically in the exercise of power and authority. Clio the Muse 02:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lloyd George

Is it true that the seeds of David Lloyd George's downfall were planted in the election of 1918, the moment of his greatest triumph? Brodieset 16:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This must be a record-breaking run of homework questions. --Dweller 16:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Lloyd George is quite helpful. Xn4 16:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is true, for the simple reason that, as a Liberal, he was in a form of 'Babylonian Captivity' to the Conservative Party, by far the strongest partner in the coalition government. Lord Beaverbrook was later to say, in all truth, that Lloyd George was a 'Prime Minister without a party.' He had, in other words, none of the back-bench support that the leader of a government with a majority in the Commons could normally call on as a matter of form. The Liberal part was divided, part in the coalition, and part outside. The part that was in was no match for the Conservative majority.

So, the 'Welsh Wizard' was only safe for as long as his magic could keep his allies in awe of him. It meant, in effect, that he had to be everywhere at once; to dominate events or risk events dominating him. He could not delegate too much power, especially in the field of foreign affairs; for too do so would risk being upstaged. The danger here was that while all succcess would be his, so too would all failure. And the failures came; in Europe; in Ireland and on the home front, where expectations were raised that could not be fulfilled; expectations that only exposed the contradiction between a radical Prime Minister and a conservative coalition. Though he managed to keep Austen Chamberlain, the Conservative leader, on board to the end, the rest of the Conservative Party became ever more distrustful of his adventurism. In the end it was the Chanak Crisis, coming on top of the scandal over the sale of domestic honours, that caused the Tories to ditch the pilot in 1922. He was never to rise again. Clio the Muse 00:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

memorization

Why and how come Islam is the only religion that have its believers memorize the whole holy Koran by heart? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.128.175 (talk) 16:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because Islam venerates the Koran more than any other religion does. --Dweller 16:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some Jewish groups memorize the Torah. Wrad 17:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This question's about memorising the Koran. Even so, Jews are far more likely to set out to memorise chunks of the Oral Law (Mishna, Talmud) than the Written Law (Torah) as the terms Oral and Written imply. --Dweller 18:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For memorizing the Qur'an, see Hafiz (Quran). For memorizing sacred scriptures in other traditions, see also Vedic chant (though "scripture" is not the right word for something that is oral not written in its authoritative form). Wareh 17:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Qur'an is a lot shorter than the Bible, and the traditionally-prevailing view among many Muslim groups has been that the Qur'an is "uncreated" and "has existed since the beginning of time" (which is quite a bit more than Jews or Christians have generally claimed for the Bible...). 19:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's a bit strange for people to say they follow a certain religion that is centered around a holy book and then spend a whole life without actually reading it. It often surprises me how much less so many so-called christians know about the bible than I, an agnostic, do. DirkvdM 18:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See here for a funny example of that with Stephen Colbert and Lynn Westmoreland. Also, I've read that many non-Arabic-speaking Muslims don't actually know what the words they've memorized mean. --Sean 15:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, you'd be hard put to find a so-called christian who even knows the ten commandments. Not reading the whole bible is one thing, but the summary? :) About that second bit, ask someone who has said a certain prayer since childhood to explain it. To do that, they'd have think about what it means and chances are they suddenly can't remember the words. Most prayers, even in one's own language, are said like a string of words, not as something that has meaning. As can also happen with the lyrics to songs. DirkvdM 06:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vienna and Versailles

Why was the Congress of Vienna of 1815 a relative success and the Treaty of Versailles of 1919 a complete failure? Brodieset 16:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because the power elite of each country (including that of the vanquished, France) was more or less satisfied with the outcome in 1815 and because France was not subjected to penalties it found onerous in 1815, whereas the elites of Germany and Austria resented their serious losses as a consequence of Versailles and therefore backed politicians who made Versailles a scapegoat for the hardships of the lower and middle classes and who advocated revanchist policies? Perhaps Clio will step in and correct me. Marco polo 17:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC) 17:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No need for correction, Marco: the core idea is absolutely correct. I would add one or two extra points. First, and perhaps most important of all, in 1815 the Old Regime in France moved back in, preventing the formation a vacuum; in 1918 the Old Regime in Germany tumbled, leaving a vacuum in its place. The one great difference between 1815 and 1919 is in the degree of consensus that existed among the victors on what form they wished the peace to take. The Congress of Vienna may not have been a completely fair peace, inasmuch as it was based on a systematic attempt to suppress nationalism; but it was workable, at least until it was finally swept away in the Revolutions of 1848, when nationalism could no longer be contained. It was workable because it established in the Concert of Europe an effective system of supervision, which, in its pragmatic focus on Realpolitik, was in every way better than the League of Nations, an ideal that died of too much practice.

In essence the Vienna peace was based on limited and conservative aims; the Treaty of Versailles had no effective basis whatsoever. It was, it might be said, the 'impossible peace', one that tried to satisfy too may diverse and conflicting aims: it aimed for security and justice; it ended by being neither secure nor just. But the contrast between the two peaces may come down to one thing, and one thing only: in 1815 France had been defeated and knew that she had been defeated; in 1918 Germany had been defeated, and thought she had been cheated. So, what kind of peace would have been acceptable to the Germans? In essence-and calling on Wilsonian principles of self-determination-one that would have left their country stronger than it was before. And who in 1919 could have accepted that? Clio the Muse 00:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opponent process theory as applied to emotion

What support is there for the opponent-process theory of emotion? User:Kushal_one --69.150.163.1 16:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Found it. its a stub, though. Opponent-process theory --Kushal^{Click me!} write to me 20:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1968 Draft Notice

What does the envelope of a 1968 United States draft notice look like?

ɗʒɛʐəɓɛɭ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.201.52.2 (talk) 17:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the advice at the top of the reference desk page suggests, it's often quicker just to do your own search. Had you done a Google Image Search for "draft notice", you would have seen that the very first item that pops up is a draft notice from 1968! --M @r ē ino 19:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, it is a lot harder to find an image of the envelope. SaundersW 20:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point! I mistakenly ignored the part about the "envelope" because, as far as I know, they didn't come in a special envelope, so asking for the envelope didn't make any sense to me. Still, that is the question, so I retract my previous answer. --M @r ē ino 21:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the newest Ken Burns film, The War, a veteran describes the day he received his draft notice. The envelope in use at that time was apparently larger than most and was blue, he knew what it was before he even opened it. Of course that was about 25 years before 1968, but at least at that time the envelope was distinctive. 161.222.160.8 22:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Big clue: It would have been a government window envelope with a selective service return address. Edison 13:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exact date of Foundation of New York City by the Dutch

Dear Madam/Sir:

Please help me find the precise date--month-date-year that is the official date for the founding of New York City (in those days, only lower Manhattan) by the Dutch. Many cities have a precise date, either traditional or actual. e.g. Rome's is April 21, 753 B.C., and Mew Orleans's is C. April 15, 1718.

The closest I have found for New Amsterdam is July 1625. Is it possible to find a specific day? WAll my attempts to find ones, based on building the fort, signing a charter, landing in Manhattan, or building a city wall or a city hall, have yielded no results.

Please help me find the month and day; 1625 as the year is on the city flag and the city seal.

Thank you.

Yours cordially, mjjon —Preceding unsigned comment added by MJJONeill (talk • contribs) 22:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any such date will have something arbitrary, but there is evidence that the earliest Dutch colonists to settle on Manhattan arrived there on July 16, 1625 (see item #27 here). That would then be a reasonable candi-date. --Lambiam 22:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hate complicating things (no, sorry; I love it!), but I think and advance party of settlers, some thirty families, may have arrived on Governor's Island the previous summer, though I cannot be more precise than that. Clio the Muse 23:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To quote our article New Amsterdam: "The town developed outside of Fort Amsterdam on Manhattan Island in the New Netherland territory (1614–1664) which was situated between 38 and 42 degrees latitude as a provincial extension of the Dutch Republic from 1624. Provincial possession of the territory was accomplished with the first settlement which was established on Governors Island in 1624. A year later, in 1625, construction of a citadel comprising Fort Amsterdam was commenced." (Italics added for emphasis) Is that what you had in mind, Clio? A ecis^Brievenbus 23:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed so. Also see the information here - 24k Clio the Muse 23:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To make matters a bit more confusing, our article 1626 says: "The Dutch settle Manhattan, founding the town of New Amsterdam." So before we answer the OP's question about the date, we first have to get some clarity on the year of the founding of New York City. A ecis^Brievenbus 23:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The New York City Parks Department did some thorough historical research a couple years ago, the results of which were a series of plaques stationed throughout the city. Here's the plaque for Battery Park. It states that the settlement of Manhattan began in 1625 (sadly, no month or date), with the Fort beginning in 1626. I have updated 1625, 1626, History of New York City, and New Amsterdam accordingly. --M @r ē ino 00:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finding quite a bit of conflicting information. Lambian's Eendracht (Captain Adriaen Jorisz. Thienpont) departed Texel January 1624 with 60 guilders worth of blankets and an unknown number of colonist ("cannot have been more than a few dozen") who settle at four locations: the Fresh River, the South River, Nooten Eylandt and the site of Fort Orange. Clio's thirty Walloon families sailed March 1624 aboard Nieu Nederlandt (Captain Cornelis Jacobsz May, 260 tons). Or these two ships sailed together and arrived at the Hudson probably the middle of May. Catalina Trico who sailed with either Thienpont or May described the disposition of the colonists in a deposition fifty years later:

as soon as they came to Mannatans now called N: York, they sent Two families & six men to harford River & Two families & 8 men to Delaware River and 8 men they left att N: Yorke to take Possession and y^e Rest of y^e Passengers went w^th y^e Ship up as farr as Albany which they then Called fort Orangie.

but that those left on Manhattan may have removed to Governors Island, or Mrs. Trico may be completely unreliable. There may have been another ship, Mackerel (60 tons) which had reached the Hudson on 12 December, 1623, may have carried colonists who may have constructed the Governors Island fort. —eric 03:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I ask with great humility before the intellectual force of the above posters, but are you discussing old style or new style dates? These events fall right in the period when Gregorian and Julian calendars were both in use, and so each date needs to be related to the appropriate calendar. SaundersW 08:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Dutch provinces of Holland and Zeeland were the major players in the West India Company, whose main chambers were in Amsterdam, Holland, and Middelburg, Zeeland. Both Holland and Zeeland, although Protestant, introduced the newfangled popish system already in the 16th century. The dates we are discussing are from WIC material, and therefore almost surely according to the Gregorian calendar. --Lambiam 11:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When New Amsterdam became the City of New York, the settlement only encompassed the lower part of Manhattan Island. Governors Island became part of New York only much later. As far as we know, the known 1624 trip of the Eendracht to the colony of New Netherland brought the settlers to other places than the initial territory of NYC. The suggestion of the WIC to concentrate the settlers in one spot, and the decision to select Manhattan for that purpose, are both from 1625. On the one hand, the extent of today's NYC overlaps with the 1624 settlements of the New Netherland colony. On the other hand, the direct progenitor of the City of New York, New Amsterdam, was founded in 1625. --Lambiam 11:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of F A Hayek's Why I Am Not a Conservative?

Do you know of anyone who has expressed a criticism or opposing views to those contained in Hayek's Why I Am Not a Conservative?? Your help is much appreciated, as I had trouble using Google Scholar and JSTOR (and unfortunately there is no separate article for this postscript of The Constitution of Liberty). Regards --Dami 23:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]