Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2014 December 15

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 15

Translation from Middle French

Hello:

What does "Le Livre de la Deablerie" translate to in English (the title, not the entire poem)? Also, can someone translate these four lines to English:

"Viença, le chief des ruffyens,

Houlier, putier, macquereau infame

De maint homme et de mainte fame,

Poisson d'apvril, vien tost a moy"

Thank you. Seattle (talk) 04:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like "the book of devilry". You could ask at WP:RDL for the rest (my guesses probably aren't that reliable). See also Eloy d'Amerval. 70.36.142.116 (talk) 05:06, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Poisson d'apvril sounds like "April Fool", as in the person who is fooled. In modern French, it's poisson d'avril. IBE (talk) 08:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

"The book of devilry", yes. It sounds these words are not exactly old French, it feels to me it is more some kind of slang of old French. The rest of what I can translate, although I'm not expert at all, just what I can feel, as translated into current French:

"Viença, le chef des voyous,

Proxénète, souteneur, macquereau infâme

De maints hommes et de maintes femmes,

Poisson d'avril, vient tôt à moi" (vers moi)?

I don't quite understand but in English it gives something in the vein of

"Viença, the leader of the thugs

Procurer, procurer, infamous procurer (choose synonyms)

Of many men and many women

Trickster (or Prank?), comes soon to me

Waiting now with interest, for someone who can enlghten us with some better translation. Akseli9 (talk) 09:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

There are several puns here. "Poisson D'Apvril" is obviously April's fool. "moy" is middle French for the month of May, so I would translate the last phrase as "April fool, soon becomes May".

Macquereau is quite likely procurer, you are right, but note that it likely is a pun relating to the "Poisson" below (literally "April fish" for April fool).

The first word "Viença" seems to be used like "Voici" "Here it is" in other books.

I also do not quite understand what how the last line relates to the other 3, apart from wanting to make a pun on mackerel and fish. --Lgriot (talk) 14:03, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

[Cross posted at [1]] The context is at [2], if that helps. Seattle (talk) 16:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

This page contains a prayer to the Virgin Mary, in which Viença appears to be a poetic summoning (=viens). Googling the word seems to confirm its use in poetry during the early modern period, giving us "Come, chief of thugs", which would seem to fit the context. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 17:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The context helps a lot, thank you! I was misleading when I stated this looked like slang. After all it just looks like old French. Poisson d'Avril is said the same way as one would say "you're a joke", "hey, you joke, come here". It also could work as an exclamation of ridicule. Please take into account that April's fool's origin is an uncomfortable misunderstanding about the new date for starting New Year, with making fun of those who still believed New Year was still April 1st. Viença is not a name, it does mean "viens ici" (come / come here), as it is confirmed in several other poems that can be found on a Google search, and several times in the rest of the poem, he tells him to come quickly and soon (vien icy faire ung tour de dance = viens ici faire un tour de danse) (acours bien tost = accours bien tôt) (vien bien tost = viens bientôt). And sorry, I confirm "moy" means moi (me), again seen in many other poems and a song I used to sing at school when I was a child that was a song from the Middle Age (l'amour de moy, s'y est enclose dedans un joli jardinet). The most disgusting/shocking/insulting verse is the last, naming him a procurer not only of women-whores, but also of men-whores.

"Viens ici, chef des voyous,

Proxénète, souteneur, maquereau infâme

De maints hommes et de maintes femmes,

Poisson d'avril, viens tout de suite à moi"

in English

"Come, chief of thugs,

Procurer, procurer, infamous procurer (two synonyms)

Of many men and many women,

April's fool, come to me at once"

The entire poem makes sense, except a few words that I would have to figure out from google searches. If you are interested by a translation, feel free to ask. Akseli9 (talk) 20:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

You've read this entire Middle French poem in a few hours and saw it made sense? This is a poem of more than 20000 eight-syllable line in Middle French. You seem to be very fast indeed. Contact Basemetal here 20:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

There are hundreds of short poems, I read only the one where Lucifer insults Satan, from line 295 to line 346. Akseli9 (talk) 21:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for not using accurate language. I should say "Middle French" as I just learned "Old French" means something else. As well I suppose I should have said I read one scene of the play. Akseli9 (talk) 21:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Which democratically elected national leaders throughout history committed treason?

• Only national leaders who are/were naturalized citizens of the country that they ended up leading qualify for this question.

Basically, I hear nativists who are against repealing the Natural-Born Citizen requirement for the U.S. Presidency argue that a naturalized citizen could commit treason against the U.S.

Frankly, I am not creating this thread to make a political point. Rather, I am simply asking an honest question here, since I am genuinely curious as to how many, if any, democratically elected national leaders who are/were naturalized citizens of the country that they ended up leading committed treason against that country afterwards.

Thoughts on this?

Also, for the record, if this is not obvious enough already, Hitler certainly does not count for this considering that Hitler did not commit treason against Germany after he came to power there in 1933.

And again, to clarify, treason which was committed before a national leader came to power (such as the Munich Beer Hall Putsch attempt in 1923) does not count for this. Futurist110 (talk) 08:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Pierre Laval and Vidkun Quisling spring to mind; although both were elected representatives, they weren't actually elected as national leaders. However, in many constitutions, the UK included, an election is not required for somebody to take office as their country's leader, Gordon Brown for example (I'm not suggesting that GB is a traitor, just that he became Prime Minister of the United Kingdom without there being a general election). Alansplodge (talk) 08:52, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

But Laval and Quisling appear to have been natural-born citizens, as opposed to naturalized citizens, of the countries which they led. Thus, they don't appear to count for this. Futurist110 (talk) 08:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread your question. However, it does demonstrate that treason is not the exclusive property of naturalised citizens; natives can do it too. Alansplodge (talk) 09:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

That's OK! :) Also, Yes, I certainly agree with you that natural-born citizens also sometimes commit treason (heck, I think that Jonathan Pollard is one example of such a person). Futurist110 (talk) 09:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I guess you would need to start with a list of heads-of-state or heads-of-government who have been found guilty of treason. This is a pretty small list to start with. Hack (talk) 09:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Do you have such a list? Futurist110 (talk) 09:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

We do have an (incomplete and poorly-referenced) list of people convicted of treason including heads of state such as Philippe Pétain and Imre Nagy, but these examples obviously don't fit the OP's specifications. ---Sluzzelin talk 10:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

And do we have a list of naturalized national leaders of state? --Lgriot (talk) 13:51, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure a head of state can commit treason, at least not during his or her leadership. This is particularly true of those nations whose heads of state are also in control of foreign relations. I'm reasonably certain that the only reason a "conviction" for treason would happen is a purge following a revolution. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Whaaat? Are you saying that anything a head of state does is legal by definition? If a head of state can in principle commit theft or rape, then why can't he commit treason? Contact Basemetal here 14:07, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

See Sovereign immunity. Basically, in some jurisdictions (in particular, monarchies, constitutional or otherwise), anything that a head of state does in his capacity as head of state is legal (or, at least, not prosecutable). Whether a particular action comes under that heading is a matter for the courts. Tevildo (talk) 14:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) For all practical purposes, a head of state's official acts don't fit within the concept of "treason". If the act is to destroy the government and assume full power, it's a self-coup (a type of coup d'état); I don't think we can say Napoleon committed treason. Diverting state funds to your own ends? Embezzlement, yes; but treason? For heads of state that are also in charge of the military in some capacity, giving comfort to the "enemy" doesn't even make sense: it'd be the functional equivalent of a cease fire. Or telling the troops to throw down their arms: that's a surrender, not treason. I mean, even if you consider a psychotic head of state who leads the foreign army through the city walls, that's still essentially a self-coup or a surrender. I don't think you're going to find any examples of heads of state being convicted of treason except as a cover for a political purge, or in the aftermath of a revolution. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:35, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

And if a president of the US was proven to have sold to the Chinese some important secret (the design of a weapons system, computer codes, whatever) that would be considered to have been done in his capacity as head of state, right? Contact Basemetal here 14:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• All this discussion about sovereign immunity is, though interesting, a distraction from the OP's question. He clearly was interested in cases of a foreign born head of state who as head of state would have acted against the interest of his adopted country (and most relevant for this discussion, for the interest of his country of birth). After all the OP's original question was about a supposed debate in the US on maintaining the exclusion of foreign born citizens from the presidency. If there are indeed people who are against an amendment repealing that restriction on the grounds that a foreign born head of state would be a treason risk, they would very certainly not be satisfied with Mendaliv's and Tevildo's legal niceties. But I have a question for the OP. I didn't know there currently was in the US a debate on this question in the first place. Could the OP point to some articles, etc. discussing this question? Has such an amendment really been proposed? Where have you been arguing with "nativists"? This is the first time I've heard of this. Contact Basemetal here 15:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• I think you raise an interesting side point which has not been addressed: the rationale for the "natural born citizen" clause in the U.S. Constitution vis-a-vis qualifications for the President. It should be noted that the rationale of the original writers of the Constitution was not treason per se. To understand their rationale, it's important to understand their world, politically, and to look at their original writings that explain exactly why they wrote what they did into the Constitution. Luckily, we have those explanations in the form of The Federalist Papers. In the Federalist Papers, the authors argue for the specific kind of Republic they saw themselves setting up, both in the general form (that is, the sort of three-branch Federal republic that they were laying out), and the specific (that is, going clause by clause and explaining why the Constitution was worded exactly as it was). At various points throughout the Federalist papers, the authors cite specific examples, from history AND from contemporary times, how various Republics succeeded and failed, and what they were doing specifically to avoid such failures. Cogent to our argument here is the example, used repeatedly, of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (called simple "Poland" in the Papers). Federalist 14, 39, though 19 is quite relevant "Foreign nations have long considered themselves as interested in the changes made by events in this Constitution; and have, on various occasions, betrayed their policy of perpetuating its anarchy and weakness. If more direct examples were wanting, Poland, as a Government over local sovereigns, might not improperly be taken notice of. Nor could any proof more striking be given of the calamities flowing from such institutions. Equally unfit for self-government and self-defence, it has long been at the mercy of its powerful neighbors; who have lately had the mercy to disburden it of one third of its people and territories." (bold mine) Quite relevant as well is Federalist 68, to wit " These most deadly adversaries of republican Government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our Councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the Chief Magistracy of the Union?" The world of the 18th century did not have a lot of positive historical examples of large, federal republics which worked. Instead, what the founders had to work with was a handful of elective monarchies, which were failures for various reasons. Poland in particular was instructive, because it showed what happened when the proper precautions were not taken when electing a leader. The "Natural-born-citizen clause" was NOT designed to prevent someone who moved to the country as an infant and then lived here the rest of their lives from becoming the President. It has that side-effect, but that wasn't the main issue for the Writers. Instead, what they wanted to avoid explicitly (and we know what they wanted, because they told us directly, see above) was having a foreign prince become elected President, then use his position to make the U.S. a vassal of foreign powers. This is exactly what happened in Poland, where various members of foreign royal families (Valois, Vasa, Wettin, Bathory, etc.) were elected by a Sejm which had been corrupted by foreign influence (money and titles and property and the like) which is why they keep coming back to it in their justifications. The entire mechanisms and rules for electing a President were explicitly put in to prevent a Poland-like collapse. It wasn't treason in the sense of selling out one's own native country that was the issue. It was foreign influence to the point where the interests of a foreign power would take precedence over the interests of the U.S. We don't live in a world filled with Monarchies anymore, so the rationales seem a bit outdated, because they are. --Jayron32 15:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

A bad example is Eli Cohen, who was chief adviser to the Syrian Minister of Defence and an Israeli spy. He was not elected but he was high up in government.--79.97.222.210 (talk) 20:22, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Jayron, thanks for that. I've always wondered about the precise origin of the "natural born citizen" clause. Good, concise explanation. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:04, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Note that divided loyalties don't need to rise to the level of treason to be problematic. Say the US could and did elect a President who was Canadian born and raised. Then, during any trade negotiations between the US and Canada it might be suspected that they were giving Canada a bit too much in the bargain. StuRat (talk) 16:23, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

For a real life instance of people worrying about something like this, see United States presidential election, 1960#Campaign issues. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:09, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

University Club, Honolulu

Where and what was the "University Club" in Honolulu around 1909 mentioned here.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 11:36, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

"Organized in 1905, the University Club was an exclusive most-likely white men's association that admitted members who had been graduated from recognized Universities, including military academies. In 1930, it merged with the Pacific Club (originally known as "The Mess" and later as the "British Club")" (C. S. Papacostas, "Ha'Alelea Lawn's Fate" ASCE-Hawaii (May 2013)). Mentioned in our list of traditional gentlemen's clubs in the United States. ---Sluzzelin talk 11:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!--KAVEBEAR (talk) 11:47, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Do illegitimate children have to be born to unmarried parents?

I was thinking of King Henry VIII. IIRC, he declared his daughter, Elizabeth, a bastard. Apparently, the king can at least declare anyone a bastard? A different scenario would be that a parent does not want his or her stepchildren to inherit the property, so he or she fails to recognize the stepchildren as stepchildren legally in order to ensure that his or her own biological offspring inherit everything. 140.254.136.176 (talk) 15:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, in the case of Henry, the trick was that his Parliament passed an act that declared his marriage with the recently late Anne Boleyn null and void. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

So, the king was more powerful than parliament and the church? 140.254.70.33 (talk) 16:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The King was head of the church at the time ... so he had the authority to do as he wished pretty much. Stepchildren do not have an automatic right of inheritance, by the way. [3] See WP:Tiptibism. Collect (talk) 16:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• Legitimacy (law) makes it clear in the first sentence, which is quite relevant to this discussion: "In Western common law, legitimacy is the status of a child born to parents who are legally married to each other". A great sentence in that almost every word means something. In the case of Henry VIII, the issues regard the word "legally". As Henry's succession needs changed throughout his life, his various marriage were declared either "legal" or "illegal" at his whim and as needed. Mary had been declared illegitimate because she had been born to Catherine of Aragon, and Henry had his marriage to her declared illegal (ostensibly because of the prohibition against marrying one's brother's former wife, which was a form of incest). Later, he had his marriage to Anne Boleyn declared illegal (because he's Henry, and can do that. Officially, Parliament passed that resolution, but Parliament was always a pawn of Henry's whims...), making Elizabeth illegitimate as well. Finally, at the end of his life, he finally relegitimized all of his children by the Third Succession Act, as Edward was sickly and there was a good chance he wouldn't live much longer than Henry himself would; and Henry wanted to shore up his succession. As a point of order, Edward didn't produce issue, and despite the Succession act, there was still a minor succession controversy on Edward's death (see Jane Grey), but basically both Mary and Elizabeth were in turn accepted as legitimate heirs because of the act. --Jayron32 17:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Legitimate heirs, but not legitimate children. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:49, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
    • No, the law does not make a distinction. They were made legitimate children in order to be legitimate heirs. Titles and property must pass to heirs of the body, which requires legal legitimacy. This includes his title as King. --Jayron32 02:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
      • A case where such a distinction was attempted to be drawn would be Le Fevre v. Sleght, a case in the Year Book of 7 Edw. 2. (i.e., 1313), reprinted in 36 Selden Society 158 (1918). In Le Fevre, the claimant in a writ of right said that the tenant was "born out of espousals" and was a bastard as a result. The problem with this is that bastardy was within the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts, and as a matter of ecclesiastical law, apparently someone born out of espousals was still legitimate (even though he would be a bastard at common law). The court refused to accept the averment about espousals, and required that the pleading be made as accusing the tenant of being a bastard, which led to a writ to the Bishop issuing to inquire as to the tenant's legitimacy (i.e., the claimant lost). Another case, Thornsett v. Whaite (from 1311, reprinted in 31 Selden Society 38 (1915)), not so much dealing with legitimacy but with whether a widow was entitled to dower, tried to frame that issue by splitting the act of marriage (ecclesiastical law) and the act of the ceremonial endowment at the church door (presumably common law). This also failed. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:32, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Regarding your second scenario, the parent would set up his will so that the people he wants to inherit do inherit, and in the ways he prefers (though of course he would do so with a lawyer's consultation since wills can become tricky as they get more complicated). There would be no need to "de-legitimate" the children he wants to disinherit. And in the general period of Henry's life (and for at least 200 years on either side) a common practice was to use a fine of lands to set up "family settlements" during the life of the landowner. The advantage of these over other methods of arranging your estate was that their validity was determined as a matter of law by the courts. And again, they were great ways of sidestepping the law of intestate succession if you wanted to set things up differently (e.g., your eldest son was a wastrel). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Henry FitzRoy, 1st Duke of Richmond and Somerset seemed to have done pretty well for himself. There's no reason Henry VIII couldn't have left him any number of things upon his death - except for the crown. There was some buzz about trying to have Fitzroy legitimated, but it proved to be a non-issue as Fitzroy died before Henry VIII did. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Are Eugène Diomi Ndongala Nzomambu and Eugène Diomi Ndongala the same person?

Thanks. Apokrif (talk) 15:52, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Apparently yes. He was a vice-minister of Mobutu. This is not the first time WP has got two different articles on the same person. Contact Basemetal here 20:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The content of the two is quite different, with different points of view being pushed in each. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't change the fact that this is very likely the same person. Look at the French articles. Are you saying WP should have two articles on the same person if they're written from different points of view? Contact Basemetal here 22:42, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm saying that if the names were missing, you might be hard pressed to conclude they're about the same guy. The two articles obviously should be synthesized - and be held to BLP rules in the process. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The latter should no longer be a worry as the French article states he was "disappeared" in 2012. Contact Basemetal here 00:38, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Maybe a good starting point would be to translate the French article into English, and then see how it squares with the two existing English articles. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:43, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I've added a note on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. --65.94.50.4 (talk) 04:25, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Don't Just Stand There

What is the history and is there a documented first use of the the phrase "Don't Just Stand There. Do something (this part can be interchangeable to any so of action or command)."? It certainly wasn't used in the 19th century. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 18:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

How do you know it wasn't? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

It is a guess base on this.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 19:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Or this. Contact Basemetal here 19:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Google ngrams gets their first hit in 1912. --Jayron32 19:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

My Ngrams query (before yours ) gives 1915 for the first occurrence. Why didn't you like mine, BTW? Contact Basemetal here 20:07, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

When I use a "smoothing" of 3 I also get 1912. What's "smoothing" anyway? Contact Basemetal here 20:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Now that I've read what smoothing is I'd say that the 1915 is probably the accurate one as no smoothing (or smoothing of 0) represents the raw data whereas the 1912 date for the curve with a smoothing of 3 is probably just an artefact of the smoothing algorithm. Contact Basemetal here 21:36, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

This page at The Quote Investigator about the inversion of the saying ("don't just do something, stand there!") finds approximate, but not exact, versions from 1877 and 1888. The oldest use I can find of the exact phrase "don't just stand there" is in the Edith Wharton short story "A Glimpse," published in the Saturday Evening Post November 12, 1932, but the quote is "Don't just stand there and repeat what I say!" --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 20:03, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

All important difference between "don't stand there" and "don't just stand there". Your 1877 and 1888 quotes are of the former. If you are happy with that then Ngrams will give you the first occurrence in its corpus in 1741: take a look here. Contact Basemetal here 21:52, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

A Dictionary of Catch Phrases: American and British, from the Sixteenth Century to the Present Day by Eric Partridge (p. 73) has some details of later use. Alansplodge (talk) 09:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Why did Lenten traditions become less strict over time?

I read that, during the Middle Ages, the medieval Lenten diet coincided with springtime, so every springtime would probably mean a cultural abstention from eating certain foods. One person wrote about his or her personal experience with recreating the medieval Lenten fast, which was supposed to help people think about suffering, especially Christ's suffering. Other sources seem to suggest that these Lenten abstentions declined - from the early church to the modern day. In the 1950s America, some sources suggest that the Lenten food tasted bland, compared to their European or Asian Catholic counterparts. How did bland Lenten foods evolve culturally? And why did Lent become less strict over time? 140.254.136.177 (talk) 21:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Lent happens to coincide with the point in the Western European calendar when food stores run low; this was especially true in medieval times. The cows aren't making milk and the salted meat from the animals you slaughtered last autumn is running low, and the cheeses you produced in the fall aren't aged enough to go to table yet. Your grain stores are even looking a bit bleak. So what impetus do you have to break the rules, compared to the benefits you believe you're getting by following them? You might not even have the wherewithal to do so if you wanted to, even if you had a dispensation to.

Then go forward 300 or 400 years. Suddenly milk and meat are available 12 months a year at prices low enough for you to afford them. Suddenly food isn't as scarce as it was. How easy is it to justify bending the rules when forbidden foods are freely available and inexpensive, compared to earlier? --NellieBly (talk) 23:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, beavers and barnacle geese were counted as fish. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:36, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, at least in very recent years, health and medical factors have been taken into account. If someone has a medical condition which requires eating on a regular basis, like maybe bad diabetic conditions, at least the Catholic Church (and I'm assuming some eastern churches) have said it is unreasonable to really risk serious medical problems for religious reasons. And, considering just how many diseases we now recognize, and how many relate in some way to food consumption, or sleeping, or other factors which might have been given up for Lent in the old days, that has played a big role in the loosening of standards. John Carter (talk) 23:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

You probably also have to factor in the Reformation and Counter-Reformation. The Protestants looked with grave suspicion on anything that looked like Catholic piety, which would logically have contributed to a token "giving something up" for Lent. The Counter-Reformation didn't quite shadow the Protestants, but modifications must have crept in as belief in the miraculous declined, and tricked out crying/bleeding wooden saints were quietly retired. Ecclesiastical courts had less power, ordinary people had more control over their own lives. Simply, they could choose not to suffer, and were less inclined to believe they would go to hell for doing so. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:28, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. See the (rather wonderfully named) Affair of the Sausages, when Huldrych Zwingli sparked the Reformation in Switzerland by defending the right to eat meat during Lent. Some Protestant traditions reject the idea of the Liturgical year in which Christians follow different aspects of the life of Christ depending on the seasons and ignore or downplay feasts such as Christmas and Easter. Others, like Anglicans and Lutherans have retained the concept, but moderated in varying degrees. Here in the Church of England, the wild excesses of Carnival and Mardi Gras on Shrove Tuesday were replaced with the rather tame Pancake Day and excuses were found to indulge in treats like Simnel cake and hot cross buns during Lent. In the last century, secularism has had a role too. Alansplodge (talk) 10:15, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

A big issue to consider when considering lenten practices, at least with respect to Roman Catholics, is the Second Vatican Council ("Vatican II"), around 1965. This instituted a series of reforms in the Roman Catholic church, many of which involved things like fasting. For example, prior to Vatican II, all Fridays were supposed to be meatless for Catholics. After Vatican II, it was just during lent that Fridays were meatless. Similarly, the emphasis on the concept of a "fast" changed - it became less about physical deprivation, and more emphasis was put on spiritual purification. The former explains the "blandness" of lenten foods to some extent. See Mortification in Roman Catholic teaching - you were supposed to be depriving yourself physically so you could grow spiritually. -- 141.39.226.228 (talk) 10:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Fasting antedates Christianity by a lot. Earlier than ancient Egypt, in fact. The Catholic Church adapted ancient practices and celebrations to a great extent. And with the same avowed reasoning as the ancients had. Collect (talk) 12:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, but in this case, Christians are directly imitating Jesus's 40 day fast in the desert, and He was following Jewish custom. It's not just Catholics, but Orthodox and Coptic Christians observe this too. Alansplodge (talk) 16:38, 16 December 2014 (UTC)