From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Humanities desk
< August 4	<< Jul | August | Sep >>	August 6 >

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.

Contents 1 August 5 1.1 Tiananmen Square memorial 1.2 Spread of the Reformed faith in Scotland and France 1.3 Health food legal definition 1.4 Why humans eat meat? 1.5 Request for Mantra Rajapada Stotram & Sri Narasimha Prapadye 1.6 Do cavemen cut their fingernails and how? 1.7 Any more on Richard Rumbold? 1.8 Bonnie Dundee 1.9 History of fasteners 1.10 Who said this quote?

[edit] August 5

[edit] Tiananmen Square memorial

Heres my question: After the Tienanmen square massacre, was any sort of memorial erected to the victims? Is such a thing in the square to this day? Easy question but Im not finding answers. Sheepeh 02:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Check out these articles: Tiananmen Square and Tiananmen Square protests of 1989. The square is still there, the Chinese don't acknowledge discussion of the protests, and thus there's no memorial (in China at least, I suppose it's possible that emigrants built one somewhere) to the victims. --JayHenry 04:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

There are many Tiananmen memorials outside China. I particularly like this one, in Wrocław, Poland. You may also want to see Goddess of Democracy. — Kpalion^(talk) 18:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

There was a episode in the simpsons which was suprisingly accurate, portraying the square with a sign that said "in 198.... nothing happend here" that might illustrate an answer for you. SGGH ^speak! 22:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spread of the Reformed faith in Scotland and France

Why did were the French of the "southern and central parts of the country", according to your "Huguenot" more readily converted to the Reformed faith? Was it not equally appealing to the northern French? Was it a Langue d'Oc vs. Langue D'Öil thing? Was it that the power of the French monarchy was so much less in southern France, and the crown was thus unable to pre-empt Reformed movements there as it was, presumably, capable of doing elsewhere? Or is it just a fluke of chance? Thanks in advance!

As an aside, how did the Reformed faith spread in Scotland? Was it top-down, bottoms-up, or a factional dispute designed to assert the strength of the [nobility/gentry/merchant class/foreign faction at court/clergy] at the expense of the established crown? Thanks again! 208.114.153.254 05:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, let's not go for the Holy Blood, Holy Grail and neo-Albigensian thing. It has to do with centers of political and religious power. Southern France is nearer Germany and Italy. It's easier for faiths to travel in there, and the Roman Catholic Church's power centers were farther away. Geogre 13:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not just the Albigenses. The south and west were hotbeds of urbanity, lasting Romanitas, intellectual Jews, Priscillianists, Arians. They had been different from the Franks and other northerners ever since "All Gaul was divided in three parts..." --Wetman 13:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, 208.114, you have actually touched on quite an interesting link here between the Huguenots in France and the Reformers in Scotland, which goes beyond their shared enthusiasm for the doctrines of John Calvin. I'll come to this in a moment or two, but first let me deal with your point about the geographical distribution of the Huguenot communities.

I am not quite sure about the validity of of the claim in the Wikipedia article on the initial distribution of those who embraced the reformed faith in France, though there are good reasons why they eventually concentrated in the south, as far as possible from Paris, the centre of Royal and Catholic power. Calvinism initially made an appearance in all of the important urban centres of France; among the dyers and combers of Paris; among the textile workers in Meaux, Rouen and Amiens; and among the printers and silk workers of Lyons. Converts were also to be found disproportionately among the professions; lawyers, doctors and clerks. It was, however, very much a movement of the Third Estate at a nation wide level, and thus vulnerable to official persecution, which increased after the Affair of the Placards in 1534.

To escape prosecution for heresy many people fled west to the Calvinist refuges of Geneva, Strasbourg and Basel. However, there was a major devlopment in the 1560s which brought a significant shift in fortune: for the taste for Reformation moved in a strong wave from the Third into the Second Estate; from the artisans and the bourgeoisie into the aristocracy. And the most important of these converts had their power base in the south of France. This new phase of conversion was to politicise the whole movement, an important factor in the coming Wars of Religion. France was to be divided between the Protestant House of Bourbon and the Catholic House of Guise, a division to be accentuated by the unexpected death of Henry II in 1559, which was to throw the monarchy into a prolonged period of weakness and crisis.

Under both Francis II and Charles IX the Guise party attained a crucial hold on the organs of state power. Opposed to any compromise with heretics, under the guidance of Francis, Duke of Guise, they were responsible for the massacre of the Huguenots at Wassy in 1562, the opening act in the Wars of Religion. To counter their power, the Protestant nobles, initially under the leadership of Louis I de Bourbon, Prince de Conde, established a 'protectorate' over the Huguenot congregations. By 1572 the so-called Republic of the Midi had taken shape, in which Protestants from the rest of France were to take refuge. So, you see, you were not that far off the mark!

In Scotland Reformation had made some progress under the guidance of George Wishart and John Knox, amongst others. But, once again, it was the power of the French Guise which was indirectly responsible for its rapid expansion. In 1548 the infant Mary Queen of Scots was sent to France, where she eventually married Francis II. In her absence the country was governed by regents, with Mary of Guise, mother of the queen and sister of Duke Francis, taking on the position in 1554. Bit by bit she increased French and Catholic power in Scotland. As a reaction to this the Scottish nobility, many of whom had embraced Calvinism, formed themselves into the Lords of the Congregation, opposed to both the Regent Mary and to France. In the ensuing Wars of the Congregation Mary, with the backing of troops sent from France, looked set to win, but for one of history's most acute ironies-the Scottish Reformation, indeed Scottish independence itself, was saved by England! In 1560 the Protestant Lords concluded the Treaty of Berwick with Elizabeth I, who sent troops to their aid. Mary died and the French left Scotland. The Scottish Reformation was thus secured by English firepower. Clio the Muse 23:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Clio! Can you recommend any books or journal articles on the subject? 208.114.153.254 02:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

What is it exactly that you are interested in, 208.114; the Huguenots, the Scottish Reformation, or both? I should warn you that the literature here is potentially huge, though I will, of course, try to narrow it down somewhat once I have a better idea of your intended direction. Clio the Muse 02:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The Huguenots. 208.114.153.254 03:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, then, here are my principal recommendations;

• The French Wars of Religion, 1562-1629 by M. P. Holt.
• Beneath the Cross: Catholics and Huguenots in Sixteenth century Paris by B. D. Diefendorf.
• The French Wars of Religion, 1559-1598 by R. J. Knecht.
• Local Politics in the French Wars of Religion by M. W. Konert.
• Sacred Boundaries: Religious Coexistence and Conflict in Early Modern France by K. P. Lauria.
• The Massacre of St. Bartholomew By H. White.
• Carnival in Romans by E. R. Ladurie.
• The Impact of the French Wars of Religion by J. B. Wood, in The Sixteenth Century Journal, vol. 15, 1984, pp. 131-169.
• Henry IV and the Politics of Religion, 1572-1596, vols. 1 and 2 by N. M. Sutherland.
• And, of course,Queen Margot by Alexandre Dumas, a literary antidote to all of the heavyweight stuff!

I hope this is not all too much. Poor thing; you'll sink under the weight of it all! Clio the Muse 03:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Ooh, how lovely! Thank you so much! 208.114.153.254 03:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome. Let me know how it goes. Clio the Muse 03:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Health food legal definition

I'm looking for the legal definition of health food. Healthwise 07:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

You won't find one. All food should be healthy to eat, otherwise it's not food. (And you'll find plenty of junk in many "health food" shops.)--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello User:Healthwise. It depends on what jurisdiction you're in and which definition you mean. If you are talking about the National Organic Program administered by the USDA, then that depends on your facilities and the associated accreditation process. Check out the general guidelines for accreditation if you want a basic overview and additional references [1]. dr.ef.tymac 00:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up: This is unrelated to your question here, Healthwise, but I also thought you might be interested in this article regarding the effects of marketing and packaging of "fast food". Regards. dr.ef.tymac 00:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why humans eat meat?

Why do humans eat meat. According to PETA's Web site, GoVeg.com, humans are not omnivores but are herbivores. Its also support animal cruelty and humans are like terrorists. Jet (talk) 08:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

If humans eat meat they are carnivores. I don't see the link with terrorism. Animals may be scared by the way they are treated (I don't know, really), but that's hardly intentional (well, normally, anyway). DirkvdM 08:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Veggiefolks to the contrary notwithstanding, hominids are omnivores, supplementing roots and fruits with insects, birds, reptiles and other mammals. --Wetman 13:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Kind of a polemic disguised as a question. Anthropologists are pretty unambiguous. Meat is the most concentrated form of protein and calories. It is the easiest and most portable method of getting protein, and humans spent thousands of years breeding beef cattle to make them more and more stupid/docile and as close as possible to being refrigerators on hooves. You can get sufficient protein for a migratory lifestyle without meat, but it requires the cooperation of nature (no droughts, no floods, no heat waves, no early frosts), while killing prey animals is easier, and ease is important, when you're barely surviving. Besides, Matthew Arnold said that vegetarians "merely take the life of that which has no voice to scream." Geogre 12:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

In the absence of instruction to the contrary, people eat meat when they can. They generally like it, and (as Geogre says) it is a good source of protein. However, the moral dimension of eating meat has troubled man throughout history, as shown not least by the attitudes towards it taken by some major religions.

Buddhists and Hindus consider all living creatures to have souls. While vegetarianism is not a requirement of either religion, both recommend non-violence and respect for all life, so vegetarianism is seen as a way to purity. Something like a third of the population of India are vegetarians.

Mainstream Christianity, on the other hand, has generally taken the view that man has dominion over all other species - "And God said, Let us make man in our image after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."^[1] The Catholic Encyclopaedia says: "...the visible world with which man comes in contact is divided into persons and non-persons. For the latter term the word 'things' is usually employed... animals, in contradistinction to persons [are] classed as things..." and "...beings that may be treated simply as means to the perfection of persons can have no rights, and to this category the brute creation belongs. In the divine plan of the universe the lower creatures are subordinated to the welfare of man." From the earliest times, there were other views among Christians. Basil of Caesarea wrote in the 4th century: "Oh God, enlarge within us the sense of fellowship with all living things, our brothers the animals to whom Thou gavest the earth as their home in common with us. We remember with shame that in the past we have exercised the high dominion of man with ruthless cruelty, so that the voice of the earth, which should have gone up to thee in song, has been a groan of travail." Xn4 13:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, "stewardship," which is now an oft-cited term of dubious denotation, generally meant that any form of animal cruelty was forbidden. That said, most Christian (and Islamic) cultures had their favored animal cruelty, whether bear-baiting or cock fighting or sacrifice, but it was nevertheless sinful to be capricious or cruel to animals. The moral side of killing to eat has bothered most, but it's one of those topics that is so unavoidable that it tends to lead into thoughts of theodicy as much as menu. ("Why is the world made so that we must kill?" "Why does nature kill, if we do not?") This was a problem for the Hebrews as well as Christians, and the general answer has been that it is a consequence of the ejection from Eden and the fall of nature with the fall of man. Geogre 14:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

If God didn't want us to eat animals, he wouldn't have made them from meat. — Kpalion ^(talk) 17:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, Kpalion, you jest. If not, then the other side of the coin is that if God hadn't intended us to be food for crocodiles, he wouldn't have made us of flesh and blood, too. Xn4 18:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Nature = sometimes you eat the crocodile, sometimes the crocodile eats you. Edison 18:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, or sometimes you team up with some other people and reach an agreement by which the crocodiles will be kept in a safe place behind a wall of glass so that you can gawk at it. (Which is just to say, nature has more layers of complication than simple red-in-tooth-and-claw.) --24.147.86.187 21:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

In this connection, may I recommend the classic (very) short story published by Terry Bisson in 1991, "They're Made Out of Meat".[2] - “You're asking me to believe in sentient meat.” -- !! ?? 17:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I tend to avoid these polemics, but I simply hate the misuse of words. Herbivores humans are not, nor have they ever been. Just think of the endless trouble in wearing down those emerging buck teeth! Jet, I'm sure you meant no bad intent, but try to be careful in your choice of words: it adds nothing to your argument to misapply terms like 'terrorist' to meat eating. More than that, it plunges what might be a valid defence of vegetarianism into the laughably absurd. In the meantime this girl continues to enjoy a good steak, and is thus happy to range herself with crocodiles and all like-minded 'terrorists! Clio the Muse 00:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Since no one mentioned it yet, have a look at Ethics of eating meat and what links from there. By the way, as a vegetarian I find it difficult enough to avoid having to discuss my (entirely personal) choice every single time someone notices this about me for the first time, especially while eating a meal. Calling people who choose to eat meat "evil" or "terrorists", is incredibly dumb and arrogant. Sorry, I normally don't soapbox, but Clio is right, it is precisely this kind of superficial vilification that pisses off people and makes me find myself defending my personal and inconsistent ethics in front of omnivores. ("So, how come you're wearing leather shoes? Ha ha, gotcha!") ---Sluzzelin talk 01:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is a little anecdote for you, Sluzzelin. I have a friend, a committed vegetarian, who had to spend some time in Poland as part of her academic research. Anxious about possible restrictions to her diet, she contacted the Vegetarian Society in London to ask about restaurants and other eating options in the country. She got the information, but she also got a little homily on how much better, peaceful and happy the world would be if all converted to the cause. Ironic, when one considers that she was off to Poland, where some the greatest crimes in human history were carried out on the orders of a vegetarian Now I am the polemicist! Clio the Muse 02:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Hah! Nice one! It goes to show how sensitive we are about his membership in our club: I've heard all sorts of conflicting stories creeping around his vegetarianism, at least one of which isn't even included in the article Vegetarianism of Adolf Hitler (yet). ---Sluzzelin talk 02:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for flagging that article up; it's highly intriguing. I know this is quite beside the point, but the description of Robert Payne (in the section headed 'Arguments against considering Hitler as a vegetarian') as a 'highly reputed biographer of Hitler' is arguably the most misleading statement I have ever read on Wikipedia. Any serious historian will tell you that Payne is a joke, and his work is the worst kind of pseudo-scholarly tosh. And that is me pulling my punches! Clio the Muse 02:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Lest readers get confused, the sentence was exactly as described, before I removed the quoted part. ---Sluzzelin talk 05:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm with you to the last ditch on the words, Clio, but to be fair to Jet, in both cases he was referring to what is said on the PETA web site -

"Attention herbivores! The time has come to elect PETA 2's third annual sexiest vegetarian."

"After 9/11, people said, “How can you care about animals?” It’s simple: Compassion is not some miserly pot out of which you can only take a spoonful. Caring isn’t like a few gold sovereigns bound up in a rag from which you can only take a couple. It should be limitless. Look out for your baby or your friend, of course. That is easy. The test of moral fiber is to stick up for those you relate to the least, understand minimally, and do not think are that much like you. For them, Ground Zero is every single day. They are terrified, slaughtered, and in danger every minute. Humans are their terrorists. - Ingrid Newkirk

The second of these, for me, is wonderfully barmy, but PETA makes up for much by its visual wit. Xn4 01:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

While there are very plausible arguments about the merits of not eating meat (or whatever dietary restirction du jour is being discussed), one is unlikely to find any good faith intellectual discourse on PETA's site (or in any other of their media). Baccyak4H (Yak!) 01:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for that clarification, Xn4. I was assuming some identification on Jet's part with this silliness. I apologise for any misinterpretation. And on that particular note I shall leave this discussion with a picture of yet another terrorist! Clio the Muse 01:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Fortunately for them, even the more obscure sources of meat, that are unable to wage their own war on terrorism, can count on the support of some dedicated humans. Step forward, members of the Lobster Liberation Front! Rockpocket 04:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The Lobster Liberation Front?! Wilder still, and wilder. What about the Militant Mouse Movement, or Rats Require Revenge, or Angry Ants Army etc. etc. etc.? Lord, what fools these mortals be! Clio the Muse 01:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Clio, it should not surprise you that I once knew a Balliol man who ate mice. I think of him when Arthur Dent is talking to a mouse in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy -

Mouse: Still, the best laid plans of mice...

Arthur: ...and men...

Mouse: What?

Arthur: And men. The best laid plans of mice and men.

Mouse: What have men got to do with it?

Xn4 04:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I love it! Thank you, dear Xn4. I know these Balliol men well; far more Ancienr Roman than Greek! Clio the Muse 05:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Mantra Rajapada Stotram & Sri Narasimha Prapadye

It would kind if any of you can post the Mantra RajaPada Stotram and Sri Narasimha Prapathyai. 221.134.221.178 10:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Do cavemen cut their fingernails and how?

Did cave(wo)men cut their fingernails, I just read that nail clippers were only invented in 1896, and before then people used scissors, even so, before scissors, and perhaps knives?!?, did people cut their fingernails, and how was it done, my mom says that cavemen let their nails grow until it accidently breaks off while they were working, but I think this is painful, and I find it hard to believe that all 10 finger- and 10 toenails were simply broken off in this way throughout a cavemen's entire life. Any ideas? Thanks. --Taktser 10:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Would they need to shorten their nails? Sharp claws more useful than blunt fingertips when digging for rocks or scratching fleas. If they really wanted to clip their nails, maybe they would use their teeth? HYENASTE 12:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Caveman is something of a misconception in referring to early humans. (For one thing, there weren't nearly enough caves to go round.) But the Neanderthals etc were pretty resourceful, so I guess they would use a stone as a nailfile if necessary. Our ancestors the great apes don't seem to find this a problem. I guess their nails wear down naturally. Bear in mind they would all be doing quite a lot of rough manual work.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

If they scratch in the dirt for grubs and roots, and walk around basrefoot, the nails will be naturally worn down. Teeth or other fingernails can trim nails so they are short if not attractive. Knives made of flint are remarkable sharp and can be used to trim fingernails. Flint knives can also be used to trim hair. Edison 18:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Some people let one fingernail grow very long to show off the fact that they don't work. I've seen a fingernail that was over 10 cm long. That would of course not be practicable, so it would indeed have to wear off because the earliest humans would not have a means to cut it. Possibly they developed such a means and after that evolved long growing fingernails because there was no more need for them to wear off. But that's pure guesswork.

I have wondered something similar about hair. Many people have hair down to their bottoms. I used to think that that would then be the 'natural' length of hair, but wondered if that wouldn't be horribly impractical for hunters. But about 15 years ago I stopped having haircuts and also stopped using shampoo. After that my hair has not grown below my shoulders. Someone remarked that my hair has split ends and maybe that's nature's solution. But there is no shampoo-equivalent for fingernails, is there? Or would ordinary soap have a similar effect? I doubt it, really. DirkvdM 07:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Nail clippers are not necessary to cut fingernails. One can easily trim them just by picking away at them. You don't need to invent flint tools to keep your nails short. 64.236.80.62 14:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, is nailbiting the 'natural' way to keep nails short? If so, no wonder it's irresistible. DirkvdM 18:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The natural way to keep one's nails short is to work with one's hands. --Carnildo 22:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I work at a computer all, day, which I do with my hands. Doesn't seem to help much. :) DirkvdM 06:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Any more on Richard Rumbold?

WikiProject Reference Desk Article Collaboration This question inspired an article to be created or enhanced: Richard Rumbold Please consider contributing

He was one of those involved in the Rye House Plot to kill Charles II and his brother James. Is anything more known of his background and what became of him afterwards? I look forward to your answers. Gordon Nash 12:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The last speech of one-eyed Cromwellian Col. Rumbold (1622-1683) was rendered famous all over again during the discussions on the definition of treason at the American Constitutional Convention, but the pattern of his character and the details of his life have to be pieced together from scanty evidence (Douglass Adair, "Rumbold's Dying Speech, 1685, and Jefferson's Last Words on Democracy, 1826" The William and Mary Quarterly 3rd Series, 9.4 (October 1952:521-531) p 523f.). He served as lieutenant in Cromwell's own regiment, and fought at Dundar, Worcester and Dundee. He was one of the mounted guard when Charles I was beheaded in Whitehall. He married the widow of a maltster and thus came into possession of Rye House.--Wetman 13:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

May it be to the world, what I believe it will be, (to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all,) the signal of arousing men to burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings and security of self-government. That form which we have substituted, restores the free right to the unbounded exercise of reason and freedom of opinion. All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God.I could never believe that Providence had sent a few men into the world ready booted and spurred to ride, and millions ready saddled and bridled to be ridden.—Colonel Richard Rumbold, from the scaffold, 1685

Colonel Richard Rumbold, another Englishman, was also taken at Lesmahago, by Hamilton of Raploch and his militia-men. He was flying into England, being conducted by one Turnbull, an man of Polwart, (for Polwart had secured himself by flight sooner than the rest had done.) He was bold, answerable to his name, and killed one, and wounded two, in the taking, and if one had not been some wiser than the rest, by causing shoot his horse under him, he might have escaped them all; however, he undervalued much our Scots soldiers, as wanting both courage and skill. What had unfortunately engaged him in this enterprise was, that he had been from his infancy bred up in the republican and antimonarchic principles; and he owned he had been fighting against these idols of monarchy and prelacy, since he was nineteen years of age; (for he was now past sixtythree,) and was a lieutenant in Oliver Cromwell's army, and at Dundee, and sundry of the Scots battles; and by the discovery of the English fanatick plot in 1683, it was proved and deponed against him, that this Rumbold had undertaken to kill the late King in April 1683, as he should return from Newmarket to London, at his own house, at the Rye in Hogsdown, in the county of Hertford, where he had married a maltster's relict, and so was designed the Maltster; and intended to have a cart overturned in that narrow place, to facilitate their assassination. But God disappointed them, by sending the accidental fire at Newmarket, which forced the King to return a week sooner to London than he designed: see all this in the King's printed declaration. But Rumbold absolutely denied any knowledge of that designed murder; though on the breaking out of that plot he fled with others to Holland, and there made acquaintance with Argyle.

On the 28th ( June, 1685,) the said Richard Rumbold, maltster, was brought to his trial. His indictment bore, that he had designed to kill the late King, at the Rye or Hogsdown, in his return from Newmarket to London, in April, 1683. But in regard he positively denied the truth of this, (though sundry had sworn it against him in England,) the King's advocate passed from that part, lest it should have disparaged or impaired the credit of the said English plot; therefore he insisted singly on the point, that he had associated himself with the late Argyle, a forfeited traitor, and invaded Scotland, &c. All this he confessed and signed; and being interrogated if he was one of the masked executioners on King Charles the First's scaffold, he declared he was not, but that he was one of Oliver Cromwell's regiment then, and was on horseback at Whitehall that day, as one of the guard about the scaffold; and that he was at Dunbar, Worcester, and Dundee, a lieutenant in Cromwell's army. He said that James Stewart, advocate, told them Argyle would ruin all their affair, by lingering in the Isles and Highlands, and not presently marching into the inland country; wherein he had proved a true prophet, but might see it without a spirit of divination. And being asked if he owned the present King's authority, he craved leave to be excused, seeing he needed neither offend them, nor grate his own conscience, for they had enough whereon to take his life beside. He was certainly a man of much natural courage. His rooted ingrained opinion was, for a republick against monarchy, to pull which down, he thought a duty, and no sin. And on the scaffold he began to pray for that party which he had been owning, and to keep the three metropolitan cities of the three kingdoms right; and if every hair of his head were a man, he would venture them all in that cause. But the drums were then commanded to beat, otherwise he carried discreetly enough, and heard the ministers, but took none of them to the scaffold with him. From the memoirs of Sir John Lauder, Lord Fountainhall, reprinted in A History of the Early Part of the Reign of James the Second, London: 1808.

—eric 19:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I have one small point to make about Fountainhall's statement: Rumbold could not have been at both Worcester, and Dundee, if by this is meant the sack of the town by General George Monck, because both of these events took place more or less at the same time.

Anyway, Richard Rumbold is one of those people more often in the shadows than the light of history. Of his early life we know almost nothing, beyond the fact that as a subaltern in the New Model Army he had been present at the execution of Charles I in 1649, and subsequently fought the Scots Royalists at the Battle of Dunbar in 1650, and again at Worcester in 1651. At some point in his life he lost an eye, though it is unclear if this was a battle injury or not. Because of this disability, and because of his fierceness of spirit, he was known to his friends as 'Hannibal.' After long years of obscurity he emerged as one of the extreme Whig faction at the time of the Rye House Plot, having lost none of his republican radicalism. When the conspiracy was discovered he fled to Holland, joining other exiled opponents of the Stuarts.

In 1685, after the death of Charles II a plot took shape among the émigrés to dislodge James II, his Catholic successor, from the throne. This was to take the form of a two-pronged attack on the British Isles: the first on Scotland under the leadership of Archibald Campbell, 9th Earl of Argyll; and the second on the west of England under James Scott, Duke of Monmouth. To emphasis the joint nature of the enterprise Rumbold accompanied Argyll to Scotland, and was eventually given a colonelcy in his small army. He was an able officer, and one of Argyll's best supporters. But the whole enterprise, badly mismanaged, fell apart. Argyll and Rumbold were both captured. Rumbold was executed in Edinburgh on 26 June 1685. Argyll, awaiting his own death, said of him "Poor Rumbold was a great supporter to me and a brave man and died Christianly." Hannibal Rumbold made his own defiant declaration on the scaffold;

This is a deluded generation, veiled in ignorance, that though popery and slavery be riding in upon them, do not perceive it; though I am sure that there was no man born marked by God above another; for none comes into this world with a saddle on his back, neither any booted and spurred to ride him...(A Complete Collection of State Trials, vol. IX, 1816, p. 882) Clio the Muse 00:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bonnie Dundee

Bonny Dundee

To the Lords of Convention 'twas Clavers who spoke.

'Ere the King's crown shall fall there are crowns to be broke;

So let each Cavalier who loves honour and me,

Come follow the bonnet of Bonny Dundee.

Come fill up my cup, come fill up my can,'

Come saddle your horses, and call up your men;

Come open the West Port and let me gang free,

And it's room for the bonnets of Bonny Dundee!

Dundee he is mounted, he rides up the street,

The bells are rung backward, the drums they are beat;

But the Provost, douce man, said, "Just e'en let him be,

The Gude Town is weel quit of that Deil of Dundee."

Come fill up my cup, etc.

As he rode down the sanctified bends of the Bow,

Ilk carline was flyting and shaking her pow;

But the young plants of grace they looked couthie and slee,

Thinking luck to thy bonnet, thou Bonny Dundee!

Come fill up my cup, etc.

With sour-featured Whigs the Grass-market was crammed,

As if half the West had set tryst to be hanged;

There was spite in each look, there was fear in each e'e,

As they watched for the bonnets of Bonny Dundee.

Come fill up my cup, etc.

These cowls of Kilmarnock had spits and had spears,

And lang-hafted gullies to kill cavaliers;

But they shrunk to close-heads and the causeway was free,

At the toss of the bonnet of Bonny Dundee.

Come fill up my cup, etc.

He spurred to the foot of the proud Castle rock,

And with the gay Gordon he gallantly spoke;

"Let Mons Meg and her marrows speak twa words or three,

For the love of the bonnet of Bonny Dundee."

Come fill up my cup, etc.

The Gordon demands of him which way he goes?

"Where'er shall direct me the shade of Montrose!

Your Grace in short space shall hear tidings of me,

Or that low lies the bonnet of Bonny Dundee.

Come fill up my cup, etc.

"There are hills beyond Pentland and lands beyond Forth,

If there's lords in the Lowlands, there's chiefs in the North;

There are wild Duniewassals three thousand times three,

Will cry hoigh! for the bonnet of Bonny Dundee.

Come fill up my cup, etc.

"There's brass on the target of barkened bull-hide;

There's steel in the scabbard that dangles beside;

The brass shall be burnished, the steel shall flash free,

At the toss of the bonnet of Bonny Dundee.

Come fill up my cup, etc.

"Away to the hills, to the caves, to the rocks

Ere I own an usurper, I'll couch with the fox;

And tremble, false Whigs, in the midst of your glee,

You have not seen the last of my bonnet and me!"

Come fill up my cup, etc.

He waved his proud hand, the trumpets were blown,

The kettle-drums clashed and the horsemen rode on,

Till on Ravelston's cliffs and on Clermiston's lee

Died away the wild war-notes of Bonny Dundee.

Come fill up my cup, come fill up my can,

Come saddle the horses, and call up the men,

Come open your gates, and let me gae free,

For it's up with the bonnets of Bonny Dundee!

Help! Could someone please interpret this for me!!! I would be so grateful. Judithspencer 14:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Sir Walter Scott should be given credit when you are reproducing the whole poem. While the question sounds like something from an Emglish class, a quick look at "Bonny Dundee" on Google gives you this [3]on the background to the poem. I am sure there are others who can do better, much better. Bielle 17:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Bonnie Dundee/Clavers is James Graham of Claverhouse, Viscount Dundee, aka Bluidy Clavers. The West Port is the West Port, Edinburgh. For Scots words—marline, pow, flyting, slee, couthie,...—the Dictionary of the Scots Language (here) is the thing. As for the meaning, Mr Graham is saying that he's off to raise an army for King James VII of Scotland. My guess is that it will end badly for him. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Some further notes for phrases you probably won't find in a dictionary: "bells are rung backward" means the chimes were rung in reverse order—an alarm signal; "sanctified bends of the Bow" is Bow Street, Edinburgh; "cowls of Kilmarnock", Presbyterians who wore hooded garments made at Kilmarnock; and "close-heads" were the ends of alleys leading from the main street.—eric 18:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I cannot construe most of the Scots words, so please refer to the dictionary linked by Angus for any additional meaning you may be seeking, Judith. I can, however, interpret the political process at work here, and how one event relates to another. The song itself is, of course, a highly romanticised 'spin' by Sir Walter Scott on a series of events that took place in Edinburgh in the early spring of 1689.

After the flight of James VII in 1688, the Scottish throne, like that of England, was technically vacant. To decide on its tenancy a Convention of Estates-a parliament meeting without royal sanction-assembled in Edinburgh in March 1689. It was quickly apparent to John Graham of Claverhouse, a professional soldier, recently created Viscount Dundee, that the Jacobites, the supporters of James, were in a minority. Edinburgh was a dangerous place for Dundee because it was it was full of Cameronians, an extreme Covenanter sect, drawn from the shires of western Scotland, from Kilmarnock and other places. These 'Whigs' should not be confused with the English Whig party, though the term was taken from its Scottish context and used against them, initially as an insult. In Scotland it is another word for the Kirk Party, which took temporary control of national affairs in 1648, after a coup known as the 'Whiggamore Raid'. This term comes from the word 'whiggam', apprently used by west country horsemen to urge on their mounts.

On leaving Edinburgh with an escort of some fifty men, Dundee climbed the castle rock to confer with the Duke of Gordon (the gay Gordon), who still held the fortress for King James, and was to continue to do so until his surrender in June. The 'shade of Montrose' is a reference to the royalist campaign fought by James Graham, Marquis of Montrose, a distant relation of Dundee's, in the Scottish Highlands in 1644-45. Scott's suggestion here is that Dundee also intended to fight a Highland war, though this was not his intention at this time. He was, in fact, to raise his standard in the Lowlands of north-east Scotland, and it was only after a disappointing response that he turned his mind to the west, encouraged to do so by a meeting with Ewen Cameron of Lochiel, one of the 'wild Duniewassals', another name for a clan chieftain. By early summer Lochiel and the other Dunniewassals were on the march, and Dundee to death and transfiguration at Killiecrankie, where his bonnet was laid low for the last time. I fought on land, I fought at sea, at hame I fought my auntie o/But I met the Devil and Dundee on the braes of Killiecrankie o. Great stuff! Clio the Muse 01:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

---

This was parodied in a poem near the end of Alice Through the Looking-Glass... AnonMoos 08:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History of fasteners

Missing from fastener. I was able to find a little about history of a screw, but most of the articles in related subcategories are pitiful stubs which have never even heard of a history section. And the Google seems packed with junk much more then I am used to :( PS. I am particularly interested in the history of the screw anchor. PS2. I found a good history of a wall plug, added to the article. Few dozen related articles remain historyless... help :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Isn't a screw anchor effectively the same as a wall plug ? maybe they should be merged?83.100.183.144 20:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Nope. They are related, but for the specialist it would be a sacrilege to merge them, as far as I understand it :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The difficulty is going to be that screws really started going with machine lathes, so isn't the "history" going to be pretty brief? If you're talking about the screw design (e.g. water screw, pumps, air screws), it's another matter, but screws require really good control of the spiral cuts in the screw and the receptacle. Someone will know a lot more than I do, but gun barrel rifling is, for some reason, telling me that it's related to the widespread use of screws. Geogre 22:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I once saw on the BBC a reconstruction of the kind of screw that the Romans might have built, made from wood, that worked quite well. It was a really big one, about 20 cm in diameter and used for pressing oil out of olives (sort of the way a printing press works). They said it was easy to make once you know how, but knowing how was not evident. I also am not sure if the Romans actually built them or it was just a demonstration that they could have. DirkvdM 08:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The wooden screw in a printing press definately predates the machine lathe.

I am happy to cede position on this matter. The wooden screw in a press would be prior to the screw as fastener, but I was trying to get at that when I talked about the screw as a design as opposed to "the screw" as an object one buys to hold bits together. Leonardo, after all, made air screws. The difficulty is making the grooves on the block fit the turns on the screw exactly. (Did early printing presses -- before machine lathing -- work with screws? I don't know.) Geogre 12:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Your bracketed question - early wooden printing presses worked with wooden screws (big ones size of the thread >1inch easy to make with a chisel) - but were constructed from wood joined by dowels or iron nails, dovetail joints etc)87.102.75.182 18:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Sidenote, I think a second PS is "PPS" and then "PPPS", etc. 68.39.174.238 03:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Who said this quote?

I read this along time ago and thought A. lincoln said it but I can not find it any where.

The quote is,,,It is not the right of the people to over throw the goverment, it is the duty of the people to over throw those who pervert it.

You might mean "We wish to see the people the masters of the court not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow those who have perverted the Constitution..."? in that case it was Theodore Roosevelt quoting Lincoln in The Heirs of Abraham Lincoln February 12, 1913, I think SGGH ^speak! 22:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

And Roosevelt attributes this to Lincoln in the following form:

Listen to Lincoln. "We must prevent these things [which are wrong] being done by either congresses or courts. The people of these United States are the rightful masters both of congresses and courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."

The part between square brackets was added by Roosevelt. The original is from notes Lincoln used for his speeches during the 1860 Presidential Campaign. The exact quotation (see the last four lines on this image) is:

We must prevent these things being done, by either Congresses or courts— The people — the people — are the rightful masters of both congresses and courts — not to overthrow the constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert it—

 --Lambiam 03:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)