Humanities desk
< March 26	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 28 >

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.

March 27

Dogtown, New Orleans

I'm looking for information about the history of a section of New Orleans, called "Dogtown". It was supposedly the site of one of the first Filipino settlements in New Orleans and the Western Hemisphere.

Does anyone know of this or have any information about it?

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by ProjectTGH (talk • contribs) 04:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find anything. Are you certain you don't mean Dogtown, St. Louis? Googling "Dogtown" + "Igorot" gives you a number of sites discussing the purported and likely false connection between Dogtown's etymology and the Igorots displayed at the Louisiana Purchase Exposition of 1904. It wasn't a permanent settlement of Filipino people though. ---Sluzzelin talk 04:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or do you mean Saint Malo, Louisiana, "the first settlement of Filipinos in the United States"? I didn't find any reference that it was nicknamed "Dogtown". See also Filipino American. ---Sluzzelin talk 05:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sluzzelin: I think Saint Malo is what i've been looking for. The name "dogtown" came as heresay, but the history of the settlement's founding is what i'm after. thanks for your help. ProjectTGH (talk) 08:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments about clerical celibacy

Toward the end of Flaubert's Madame Bovary, an anti-religious man and a Catholic priest are arguing on the question of clerical celibacy. As one reason for celibacy, the priest argues that it would be impossible for a married man to keep the secrets of the confessional. Has this ever been an "official" reason for clerical celibacy? A quick search of Google for "clerical celibacy" and "confessional" revealed nothing. Nyttend (talk) 05:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what the official line is, but I very much dispute what that priest said. There are a number of occupations where people have access to confidential information that it would be utter folly to divulge to anyone at all, including their spouses, outside of that environment. I refer to security, defence, espionage, government etc occupations. Doctors, psychiatrists, counsellors, therapists etc would be the same. Their spouses could no more be "trusted" than some random stranger in the street, so they often have only the vaguest idea about what their hubbies/wives do all day. Privacy laws have played a part in making this information even more strictly controlled - but I acknowledge such laws didn't exist in Flaubert's day. -- JackofOz (talk) 10:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard the line you discuss taken seriously. At the time when clerical celibacy was introduced (several centuries AD) the theology of the time held that women and sex, even within marriage, were a temptation from the holy life; permissible to the average Christian but not compatible with a calling to higher holiness. I would imagine that is where the doctrine originated. See Clerical celibacy. You might also find this article interesting. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard it argued that the main reason for requiring priests to be celibate is so the church doesn't have to pay to support their families - that seems more likely than any other explanation to me! (Remember, when the rule was introduced priests would have been pretty high-born and any children of theirs would have been expected to go to good schools, their wives would have been expected to be active in "polite society", etc. That's all pretty expensive.) --Tango (talk) 18:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that whoever told you that underestimated how long ago clerical celibacy was brought in. It's a product of the 11th century reforms, in this case aimed at Nicolaitism - clerical marriage. Priests weren't necessarily high-born - certainly Sylvester II and Gregory VII weren't, and they both made it to the top. 'Polite society' in the sense that we know it from the 18th century on didn't exist as such. The good schools were all run by the church anyway, so any priest's child either had a schoolmaster for a father, or else was well-placed to enter someone else's school. My understanding was that the main practical (as opposed to spiritual) criticism of clerical marriage was that ecclesiastical office was an interest in land, and could be inherited; by preventing priests from having (legitimate) children, the church got to control ecclesiastical offices. AlexTiefling (talk) 19:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. And reading the article clerical celibacy (already linked) should provide some context for the reforms aimed at clerical marriage. The spiritual history goes back a long way, although it would be foolish to dismiss the practical side in later centuries. The requirement that priests be celibate predates the requirement that they not be married at the time of ordination. 79.66.127.79 (talk) 19:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those church-run schools generally charged fees, as far as I'm aware. Perhaps there were some low born priests, but I believe many (most?) were 2nd sons of noblemen, and the like. The phrase "polite society" may not have been in use, but life among noblemen wasn't cheap. --Tango (talk) 00:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Things like school fees as we understand them are a Renaissance or later invention. Early medieval church schools were (as I understand it) run as a sort of charity, paid for by major donors, rather than pupils' parents, in the hope that the children would enter the church. And the 'second sons' thing is also a mostly later convention. Any number of famous medieval clerics were utter nobodies in dynastic terms. I've already produced two popes from peasant backgrounds, but there are plenty more where those came from. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General officers from Norwich University

In 1819 Captain Alden Partridge founded Norwich University. Norwich became the starting point for modern day military education. As the first senior military college in the United States, it was the birth place of ROTC-- and in the eyes of the American south. Shortly following the creation of Norwich, Virginia Military Institute (VMI), and The Citadel came about.

VMI has been recognized for graduating the most flag grade officers (generals/admirals) other than the U.S. Service Academies. Following VMI, is The Citadel, however, no where is the amount of flag grade officers from Norwich University posted on the internet.

I've searched forums, even Norwich's site itself, including their alumni department.

My question is: How many general officers have graduated from Norwich University? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snyder272 (talk • contribs) 07:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The NU Alumni department has contacted me, and has told me, 138 general officers have graduated from Norwich. The quest is over! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.42.231.169 (talk) 08:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Type of chair

I am having a mental blank. What is the name of a 19th century French gilded chair, with upholstered seat and round upholstered back. Second question, what is the name of the chequered material which is often put on the back of it? Kittybrewster ☎ 19:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have remembered the fabric is gingham. Kittybrewster ☎ 20:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A parlor chair? Bus stop (talk) 20:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A vanity chair? Bus stop (talk) 20:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A bergère (en cabriolet, see article)? It originated in the 18th century, however. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might try asking the nice people at the Wallace Collection in Manchester Square. "The Wallace Collection is a museum in London, with a world-famous range of fine and decorative arts from the fifteenth to the nineteenth centuries with large holdings of French 18th-century paintings, furniture, arms & armour, porcelain and Old Master paintings arranged into 25 galleries." Their website is here. BrainyBabe (talk) 12:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the material is just called webbing in English, classically made of canvas. I think bergère is right, though these are not just the ones with rounded backs, & there may be a special term for those. Johnbod (talk) 04:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Knighthood?

If the land held by a duke is a duchy; by a count is a county, etc what is the land/territory ruled by a knight called? It's not "knighthood" is it? because that word is used to describe the office of a knight isn't it? There are only a few handful of hereditary knighthoods around like that of Knight of Glin and Knight of Kerry, and even fewer ruled by a sovereign knight. --Kvasir (talk) 20:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from those very weird and ancient exceptions you mentioned, knighthoods do not (and afaik have never) come with any property entitlements; they're just personal titles. Also, a county is not the land held by a count, except possibly in some continental European circumstances. England/Britain/the UK has never had counts, but earls (although the wife of an earl is, for some odd reason, a countess). The English word "county" was a corruption of the French "comté" because there was a strong Norman influence, but the word "earl" was used in England long before the Norman invasion. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I was referring to the continental counts and their counties --Kvasir (talk) 22:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has been said that the old English earls were analogous to continental dukes, but after the Norman Conquest earl was translated as comes (Latin) / comte (French) because William, duke of Normandy, didn't want any other dukes about. —Tamfang (talk) 11:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The closest thing I can think of to this would be a fiefdom.192.26.212.72 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

There are no sovereign knights, as such. Knighthoods are invariably conferred by a senior noble - usually, but not always, a sovereign. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can think of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta which had land at one point. But I wouldn't think we describe Malta as a "fiefdom" at that point? --Kvasir (talk) 22:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A sovereign order of knights is not the same thing as a sovereign knight. The Teutonic knights are an example of a knightly order who had their own sovereign state. The closed thing I can think of to a knight with sovereign authority is the imperial knights. Algebraist 22:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. This looks close to what i'm looking for, just trying to find that word now. Probably a tough task because it's a concept foreign to the English speaking world. --Kvasir (talk) 22:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The territory controlled by an imperial knight was typically known in German as a "Herrschaft", which you might translate as "lordship", though we have the stubby article Herrschaft (territory). Marco polo (talk) 00:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I was arriving to that conclusion while reading through some of the realms in the Holy Roman Empire. Good to have a confirmation. --Kvasir (talk) 02:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(In British usage) A knight is not a member of the peerage; he has appeared on the Honours List as an acknowledgement of some sort of service. Knighthood is not hereditary, and there's no fiefdom that "goes with" the title. One just slaps a "Sir" or "Dame" ahead of one's own name. When being refered to, just the last name (eg, Churchill) or the title and full name (Sir Winston Churchill); when addressed directly, the title and given name are used (Sir Winston).

As a super-duper honor, one may be ennobled. This usually results in the generic "Lord" title, used with the surname (Lord Nelson, Lord Olivier). Again, there's no fiefdom. Sometimes you get to have a title different from your family name, eg, Sir Edward Pellew became "Lord Exmouth," Sir John Jervis became "Earl St Vincent." The point here is all these titles are missing the key word "of." Now when Sir John Jellicoe was ennobled, he bacame "Earl Jellicoe of Scapa."

Of course all this is essentially meaningless in a "crowned republic." The Duke of Whatever is not actually the suzerain over his duchy (although it must be pleasant to be called "Your Grace," and a comfort to know that you'll be hanged with a silk rope).

B00P (talk) 03:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They don't even have to pretend to refer to places within the UK, or indeed to any real place at all. Baroness Ryder of Warsaw held no sway over any part of Poland, and Baron Birdwood of Anzac and Totnes didn't even lord it over the non-existent place Anzac (or Totnes for that matter). -- JackofOz (talk) 08:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anzac, Alberta does exist within the Empire... --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are we thinking of baronets or territorial designations? Kittybrewster ☎ 10:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The of in Earl Mountbatten of Burma isn't quite the same as the of in Earl of Stockton. —Tamfang (talk) 11:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about manor? In England's feudal period, a major landholder who wasn't a baron was usually a knight, no? —Tamfang (talk) 17:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lord of the manor is a separate title which has caused some controversies. Rmhermen (talk) 19:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I'm not talking about the British nobility system strictly, I was looking for what Marco Polo suggested above. Simply the name of a territory controlled by a knight. An English language equivalent to Herrschaft. I understand territorial designation and all that. --Kvasir (talk) 19:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barony? if it's the type of "sir" who is a baron,hotclaws 23:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barons are not titled as 'Sir', but as 'Lord'; conversely, baronets, although hereditary, are 'Sir' and not 'Lord', and their titles are non-territorial. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]