Humanities desk
< February 11	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 13 >

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.

February 12

Château Gaillard construction costs

Our article says, However, the work at Château Gaillard cost an estimated £15,000 to £20,000 between 1196 and 1198. This was more than double Richard's spending on castles in England, an estimated £7,000. The article later also says, Not only was the castle built at considerable expense, but it was built relatively rapidly; construction of large stone castles often took the best part of a decade; for instance the work at Dover Castle took place between 1179 and 1191 (at a cost of £7,000). So, where did King Richard get so much money so quickly? Would there be anything in the Pipe rolls on that?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:30, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly in the Pipe rolls or one of the other financial records (financial sources for medieval English history are amazingly abundant). Our article at this point is using John Gillingham's book about Richard I as a source, and the book has far more detail on Richard's finances for building Chateau Gaillard. It has lots of footnotes too, they should help you a lot. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have ordered John Gillingham's book thru I.L.L. - what a great lead. Thanks again Adam.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:36, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did nobility donate money to Richard's project Château Gaillard? --Doug Coldwell (talk) 17:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a definitive answer, but I've not come across the nobility donating money to royal castle building before. When it comes to defence of the realm, the were much more likely to build a castle themselves rather than directly invest in someone else's. Taxes seem a more likely sources of income. Nev1 (talk) 18:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Connotation of "rafidah" and "kafir"

Watching ISIS propaganda videos they often refer to their enemies as one of these two terms. I know what they mean. Could an Arabic speaker explain the connotations of these two words? Are they similar to the "n word" in English, for instance? Would they be used in polite, non-ISIS conversations? For ISIS do they evoke hate, or fear, or contempt, or some other emotion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radioactivemutant (talk • contribs) 15:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kafir كافر = "unbeliever" or non-Muslim; Rafidah رافضة literally "renegade, defector", in this context a Muslim who rejects legitimate Islamic leadership. Rafidah is an extremely common term of insult used by Salafis and Wahhabis to refer to Shi`ites. On the other hand Takfiri تكفيري is common derogatory word used by non-extremist Muslims to refer to extremists (basically meaning "excommunicator" or "someone who is quick to declare Muslims to be non-Muslim")... AnonMoos (talk) 16:18, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking about the connotations, not the definitions — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radioactivemutant (talk • contribs) 03:13, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How do Christians celebrate Christmas for 12 days?

How are the 12 days of Christmas observed? Why is it 12 days? What do Christian laypersons and clerics do on each day of the 12 days of Christmas, other than giving away presents? Are gifts the main theme, or are there other important aspects of these 12 days? 140.254.136.149 (talk) 15:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the Wikipedia article Twelve Days of Christmas? — Kpalion^(talk) 15:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It's not very descriptive. That's why I asked. 140.254.70.33 (talk) 15:42, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article indicates it's celebrated (if at all) in a variety of ways. In America, it's generally not much of a thing, beyond the endlessly-parodied "12 Days of Christmas" song. As for the number 12 itself, that's one of those traditionally "magic" numbers. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK we don't do anything specific during this time to celebrate Christmas, as the period that used to be regarded as Advent is now thought of as Christmas. In France there is the custom of celebrating the feast of the Epiphany when the wise men or mages traditionally arrived, as the Fete des Rois (Feast of the Kings). They have a special cake (the galette des rois) with a "bean" in it, in the shape of a tiny model baby, and the person who gets the "bean" in their slice gets to be king or queen for the night. This person sometimes also has the responsibility of buying another cake to carry on the celebration. SaundersW (talk) 15:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When I lived in New Orleans, Louisiana, Mardi gras was a popular holiday. Every year, there was a Mardi gras parade, and each float threw plastic necklaces and sometimes toys. There was also a very special cake, and a baby was inside it. 140.254.136.149 (talk) 16:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mardi Gras is, of course, later in the winter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is it. The Mardi gras king cake. 140.254.136.149 (talk) 16:10, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mardi Gras is called Shrove Tuesday in English. It's next week. Alansplodge (talk) 13:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

12 days is the traditional time from the birth of Jesus to the arrival of the Magi. The last day was traditionally a day of revelment (Twelfth Night (holiday)). Collect (talk) 16:14, 12 February 2015 (UTC).,[reply]

I had a traditional Church of England upbringing in a somewhat rural area. Christmas for us was an extended season, consisting of two parts, Advent and the Twelve Days of Christmas. The run-up to Christmas was celebrated religiously by more-or-less mandatory attendance at church on Sundays from the Sunday before Advent onwards, to participate in the Advent services. In addition there would typically be a number of Carol Services in which the Christmas story would be told through readings from the Bible, through choral anthems and through congregational singing; these would occur periodically throughout the last couple of weeks before Christmas. For an excited child the beginning of Advent was heralded by the Sunday before Advent, known as Stir-up Sunday, during the afternoon of which we participated in the ritual stirring of raw Christmas pudding dough that had been prepared a day or two earlier; this presented an opportunity for children to wish for particular Christmas presents. Traditional non-religious (or at least non-Christian) events during Advent included the "Pigs' Christmas", when pigs would receive a special meal of windfall apples, and a search for a "Christmas log", which would be burnt in the house's main fireplace on the night of the Winter solstice. No child was allowed outdoors between sunset and sunrise the following day during the night of the solstice, for no reason other than "tradition". These traditions are probably left over from pagan times. The ashes of the log were saved for later use (see below).

Unlike urban areas, Christmas trees were not decorated until the 23rd or 24th of December. The house was also decorated with holly, which was invariably gathered early in the morning of the day after the solstice. This was a job for women and unmarried men only, though married men were allowed to carry ladders where necessary.

On Christmas Eve almost everybody except the very young would attend a midnight service. Since this was an Anglican community this would not be a mass, but a carol service. The service was held by candle-light. Each member of the congregation carried a candle, but these were at first unlit. The church was lit by just a few candles to allow reading of the Bible, and we were expected to know the carols by heart (!). However, at midnight a large candle was lit to symbolise the birth of Christ as "Light of the World", and people nearest this candle would then light their candles from it, in turn lighting those of their neighbours. Over the course of a few minutes everyone's candle was thus lit, and, full of light, the church welcomed Christmas Day.

Christmas Day itself was celebrated with another trip to church, after a breakfast that was invariably pork pie (for reasons of "tradition"). It was expected that all communicant members of the congregation would take communion at the Christmas morning service, and a special sermon was preached particularly aimed at children. There was also a great deal of tea and cake afterwards for the adults, while children would compare Christmas presents! A typical Christmas dinner (turkey or goose) would be eaten later in the day.

Boxing Day was not celebrated religiously, unless it happened to be a Sunday. Boxing Day lunch or dinner was ham, again a tradition of unknown origin. (Housewives would have previously spent many anguished hours discussing the best ham recipes together, and much family pride was invested in who could produce the best ham, with slices of cold ham being circulated from house to house for sampling. My mother's recipe, involving a complex mixture of spices and citrus fruits, was much admired. The combination of left-over turkey and ham caused a certain dietary monotony in the later days of December.)

Holy Innocents' Day was celebrated on 28 December. This would generally require another trip to church. A special blessing was said in church for all children below school age, and there would be more cups of tea in the church hall afterwards.

New Year's Eve was typically celebrated with parties that ran into the early morning, often with singing, dancing and punch. Shortly before midnight the house's front door and back door (and sometimes other doors and windows) were opened, and the head of the household would greet the invisible New Year at the front door with a glass of some suitable beverage, while the equally invisible Old Year would leave by the back door.

New Year's Day was celebrated by the arrival of morris dancers, who would be blessed by the vicar at some point during their performance.

On Twelfth Night - the evening of 5th January - the Christmas decorations and Christmas tree would be taken down.

Epiphany, the next day, generally included a short morning service at church, but only the most observant would attend, as this was generally a week-day. By tradition, cleaning ladies and similar staff did not start work until after lunch on that day.

After the official end of the Twelve Days of Christmas, there would be one final church service, which marked the official end to the festivities: on the Sunday after the Twelve Days all farm workers would polish their implements and bring them to the church, and all were blessed by the vicar. Again, tradition. Unfortunately, since most farmers relied on tractors and other large machines, all of which were driven to the church to be blessed, this generally led to a traffic jam that lasted well into the afternoon!

The following day, everyone went back to work as normal. Ashes from the Christmas logs would be dug into gardens or ploughed into fields early in January to bring good luck for the next year.

So, not a lot of pure "religion", but Christmas did bring with it a fair amount of ritual/traditional behaviour. I've enjoyed the chance to write about it, though. RomanSpa (talk) 18:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The cheeses Murray has chosen!

For the sake of wee oldsters, please put spaces between thy paragraphs.

Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 04:38, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thank you! Now, all the popular Christmas songs make sense to me now! Deck the halls with boughs of holly! Fa la la la la la la la la! 140.254.136.149 (talk) 18:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the US, I've seen a variation of the Advent Calendar, where there are 12 "doors" instead of 24, and each had a small gift (like a silver dollar) or a candy/chocolate behind it. (If there was a prayer behind a door as in the actual Advent Calendar, you would have a rather pissed-off kid.) StuRat (talk) 18:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eleven days of shopping, one day of rest for the after-Christmas sales. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:50, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When was Italy first "Italy?"

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C55E:E440:85E2:EA9D:36B8:DAE8 (talk) 16:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This may be useful. 140.254.136.149 (talk) 16:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking about the Unification of Italy, the source and usage of the word "Italy", or something else ? StuRat (talk) 17:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Roman Italy was created officially by emperor Augustus with the Latin name Italia. It was the first time in history that the peninsula (from the Alps to the Ionian sea) was united under the same name." Augustus died in 14 AD; the term continued in use to mean the Italian Peninsula, but it didn't become unified as a nation state until 1871; see the "Unification" link that StuRat posted above, and Kingdom of Italy. Alansplodge (talk) 17:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean the name itself, see Italy#Etymology. I have always been fond of the land of veal theory and it's the one I've most often come acrost. μηδείς (talk) 18:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Klemens von Metternich is famous for writing in November 1849, "Italy is only a geographical expression". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given the Unification of Italy occurred 12 years after Schmetterling's death, his statement is not all that shocking, or informative. μηδείς (talk) 01:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What he meant is that calling someone an Italian is like calling someone a European (though he had an interest in political disunity in the peninsula as well). It's the case even today. Italians tend to vary greatly even on the level of villages. It's a bit like the Star Wars Galaxy (anyone who needs that wikilinked should feel ashamed). Everyone speaks Galactic Basic (Standard Italian), have one currency, and a central governing body (the comedy show known as the Italian government), but each planet has its own language, history, traditions, cuisines, dances, etc, and considers themselves more part of their town than the greater polity. It's on a level much greater than many other places. I know this from personal experience. Though at Metternich's time, the differences were somewhat more pronounced (The Neapolitan language, for instance, had fewer Italian influences than it does today (as people that speak it are forgetting more and more words with each generation)). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 24 Shevat 5775 02:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Baptism by immersion in Catholic, Orthodox, and Baptist traditions

On Youtube, I watched a Catholic baptism, an Orthodox baptism, and a Baptist baptism. Both the Catholic and Orthodox baptisms include immersion in water three times, while the Baptist baptisms include immersion in water only once. Why? What is the reason behind this difference? 140.254.136.178 (talk) 22:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could you link the video? Catholic baptism isn't generally by immersion but affusion. I have no link but I do recall from my days as a more active Catholic and Godparent that the three pours (or dunks) are one for each member of the Trinity. Mingmingla (talk) 23:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Second Mingmingla re affusion instead of immersion, though I'm not sure you'll be able to post a video here (what with Youtube usually being blocked). The title of the video might work, though.

Reason for a single dunk among Baptists is not any sort of denial of the trinity (non-trinitarian Baptists exist but are an extreme minority), but a matter of practicality: it's easier to splash a baby three times than it is to dunk someone whose age is in the double digits just once. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "trick" to posting blocked links is to do an exact google search that gets the link you want as its first result, and tell people to click on the google search. It really surprises me how evil the people who run this place are. If anyone needs help, email me, and I will hack it. μηδείς (talk) 01:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Google does tailor one's results to their prior search histories though. That's why some white supremacists, conspiracy theorists, and other kooks may insist that some backwaters and crazy geocities site was "just the first thing that came up" when they searched the topic (to make it look like an innocent mistake because a first page result must be a prominent view). Ian.thomson (talk) 03:38, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "trick" is usually to ask for a verbatim search that could not but reach the results you want, such as; "The trick is usually to ask for a verbatim search that could not but reach the results you want". μηδείς (talk) 04:33, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which would be... The video's title. Also, when I searched for "The trick is usually to ask for a verbatim search that could not but reach the results you want", I didn't get any Wikipedia pages. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:41, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ian.thomson, try clicking the link search now. It takes about a day for most new WP material to show up on google. μηδείς (talk) 05:42, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is all very interesting I'm sure, but very few Youtube links are going to be blocked. A tiny number may be in one of the blacklists. A slightly larger number may be affected by an edit filter. It's possible some may be reverted by a bot too but I'm not sure of this particularly on the RD. A bot would actually be the best way, because the link is basically just a random string whereas a bot could e.g. revert all links going to a certain Youtube channel or whatever. But anyway I've never heard of this being a problem on the reference desk. Of course Youtube links to stuff which are WP:copyvios are forbidden pretty much anywhere on wikipedia, but giving a Google search result to find the same thing violates the same policy so it's pretty pointless. Baptisms will often be filmed by a parent or someone like that, so many of these aren't going to be copyvios. (In articles, Youtube links are often problems because often they aren't RS. And when they are RS they are often copyvios.)Nil Einne (talk) 19:27, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Bible obviously talks about baptism, but does it specify the details of the ritual? (Or for that matter, why the details are so important compared with the faith itself?) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:20, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are only two details that matter (the "form" of baptism) for Roman Catholicism: [1] flowing water, and [2] Trinitarian formula. By Catholic doctrine, one is baptized a Christian, rather than as a Catholic or a member of any other sect. The flowing of the water can be by immersion or by pouring, but the latter is the more usual in practice. Why is water important? The Catholic Catechism cites John 3:5: "unless a man be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." (BTW, the Catholic church also recognizes other forms of baptism not involving water, including "baptism of desire" and "baptism of blood" (martyrdom).) - Nunh-huh 03:23, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Jesus was baptized in a river as an adult, that's about it. Any Christian who is not actively and intentionally ignorant about their theology would say that the physical splashing is ultimately pointless without the faith, the disagreement would be as to how necessary or unnecessary it is as a sign of faith; and whether the differences simply mark different equal options to be a Christian (Ecumenism), or how authentic one's tradition is. The Bible has very few specifics on how a church ought to be run, but does generally support the concept of 'if you're going to do something, do it wholeheartedly and not halfassedly' (or "if you're gonna call yourself Catholic, don't refuse to baptize babies because you think they're withholding consent; and if you're gonna call yourself a Baptist, be ready to hold a 300 lb man under water without killing him.") Ian.thomson (talk) 03:38, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably a lot of this stuff stems from the early days of the church, superstition being that you had to do something a certain way in order for it to "count" in God's eyes. A bit off this track, but it reminds me of this old story about an older Jewish guy who is smacked by a car as he tries to cross the street. A priest sees this, runs over, and not knowing the guy, starts to deliver last rites just to be on the safe side. "Do you believe in the Father? The Son? The Holy Ghost?" The guy looks skyward and says, "I'm dying, and he's asking me riddles!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]