Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 November 13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Humanities desk
< November 12 << Oct | November | Dec >> November 14 >
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

[edit] November 13

[edit] Verbatim texts of military orders?

Can anyone provide me with samples of the written orders military commanders would have given to their officers and troops in 17th century Europe? Thanks, Adambrowne666 02:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

A council of war was routine during campaigns and before battles, so that many orders would have been verbal and quite general. The most likely written orders to have survived until today would be from governments to generals in the field. Louis XIV usually sent written instructions to his generals, sometimes quite detailed ones, and the Spanish and Austrian governments likely did the same. I've never seen these quoted anywhere. As far as orders in the field go, I had a skim through the memoirs of Marshal Tessé, just because they were the first I came across, and while there are plenty of cases of him ordering someone to do something or go somewhere, not one order is quoted verbatim. Not much help I know, but the best I can manage, Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Adam. Here, below is the verbatim order issued on the eve of one of the most infamous incidents in British military history-the Massacre of Glencoe in February 1692;

You are hereby ordered to fall upon the Rebels, the McDonalds of Glenco, and putt all to the sword under seventy. You are to have a special care that the old Fox and his sons doe upon no account escape your hands, you are to secure all the avenues that no man escape. This you are to putt in execution at fyve of the clock precisely; and by that time, or very shortly after it, I'll strive to be att you with a stronger party: if I doe not come to you att fyve, you are not to tarry for me, but to fall on. This is by the Kings speciall command, for the good & safty of the Country, that these miscreants be cutt off root and branch. See that this be putt in execution without feud or favour, else you may expect to be dealt with as one not true to King nor Government, nor a man fitt to carry Commissione in the Kings service. Expecting you will not faill in the fullfilling hereof, as you love your selfe, I subscribe these with my hand  att Balicholis  Feb: 12, 1692. Signed R. Duncanson.

The order was issued by Major Duncanson of the Earl of Argyll's Regiment of Foot to Captain Robert Campbell, the officer on the spot. You can probably detect from the threatening tone of the command, the inferences to the penalties for failure, that Campbell had no advanced knowledge of the task before him. I wasn't sure if this would be any use to you. It is certainly a seventeenth century military order, though hardly typical. The general form-laying out tasks and targets-is probably fairly standard, though. Clio the Muse 00:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It's just the thing! - I wanted a feeling for the tone of such things - 'put all to the sword', 'expecting you will not fail in the fulfilling thereof'. Thanks so much, Clio. Hope all's well for you. Thanks to Angus, too; you certainly got further than I did, anyway. Adambrowne666 19:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

All is well, Adam; all is well! Clio the Muse 00:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Women on the stage (2)

I've amended my question above (of Nov. 9) on this topic. Any help appreciated! (Please post to original question.) Thanks. LuckyThracian 02:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Dreimal 100 Advokaten ..."

Could any one attribute this quote: "Dreimal 100 Advokaten – Vaterland, du bist verraten; dreimal 100 Professoren – Vaterland, du bist verloren!" It was used to refer to the 1848-49 Frankfurter Nationalversammlung, but the question is by who? C mon 13:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It's attributed to Otto von Bismarck at the Frankfurt Parliament, 1849: typically anti-intellectual and subversive of the rule of law. Leave out the numbers, which vary in quotes, and just google "Vaterland du bist verraten Vaterland du bist verloren ". --Wetman 14:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Could you be more specific to where you find this attribution? If I google what you instructed me too I get a error message". Moreover he was not a member of the Frankfurt Parliament, only of the Erfurt Parliament, and that only since 1850. I can google for hunches myself but I am looking for a specific attribution. C mon 17:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Try this search.  --Lambiam 17:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
There seem to be several versions of this quotation. The German Wikiquote site (see here) has only "Achtundachtzig Professoren: Vaterland, du bist verloren" (Eighty-eight professors: Fatherland, you are lost), which it sources from the periodical Deutsche Rundschau in 1901, Rede über das Frankfurter Parlament 1848-1849 (Speech on the Frankfurt Parliament of 1848-1849). But 1901 is a few years after Bismarck's death, and a newspaper is generally not the best of sources, so it may be that there isn't a very reliable source for this quotation. Xn4 21:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fall of Empires

I'm trying to draw parallels between the fall of the Roman and the British empires. I accept that the two events are not strictly comparable, but I'm just looking to paint a very broad picture. The Roman Empire was essentially on the defensive from the third century onwards, perhaps even earlier. At what point can it be said that the British Empire was also entirely on the defensive? Is there a military-historical event in the life of the British Empire comparable with the Roman defeat at Adrianople in 378 and the subsequent breach of the western frontier? Once again let me stress I am not looking for an exact comparison, merely a broad outline. It's all part of my Spenglerian thesis of decline. Thank you. General joffe 13:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Not an easy comparison to draw, as the British Empire's affairs were conducted in such wildly different manners in different places. However, re your Adrianople comment, World War Two marks a rather important watershed, with many Imperial dominions succeeding in gaining independence in the 5 years immediately following the war from an exhausted and depleted Britain. However, this is simplistic too, because the independence movements in many of those places were already well in train before WWII and the war may just have accelerated affairs. Then again, that's probably an elegant parallel with Adrianople. --Dweller 14:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I too was about to say that "World War II" is the misleading answer you're looking for. You may be interested in more sophisticated modes of comparison in J.A. Tainter, The collapse of complex societies. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) 1988, which I heartily recommend as an antidote to the glib generalities of Toynbee, through whom you are probably viewing Spengler, at a remove. John Michael Greer, How Civilizations Fall: A Theory of Catabolic Collapse 2005, might spur your curiosity about Tainter, who will reshape your thinking in this matter. --Wetman 14:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I, too, recommend Tainter's book most heartily. There's also Allen, Tainter and Hoekstra's 'Supply-side sustainability' which, although focusing on ecology, contains a lot of historic information and comparisons. Random Nonsense 15:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
It wasn't the dominions (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa) which gained independence after the Second World War, for them independence had come before it. "Is there a military-historical event in the life of the British Empire comparable with the Roman defeat at Adrianople in 378?" No. The British Empire wasn't driven out of business by the equivalent of the Goths. Like all of the European colonial empires, it broke up because the world moved on and the impetus towards democracy (or at least the sham of it) and self-determination became unstoppable, first, in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, for the dominions which had a European majority, and then, from the 1940s onwards, for non-Europeans. There was, though, a great watershed moment, and that was the independence of India in 1947, very much the product of the Indian independence movement. Without the huge critical mass of India, the Empire was hugely diminished, and much of the rest of it (particularly in Africa and the Middle East) had been acquired to secure the sea lanes to India. If you're looking for a crunch moment, I'd say that's it. Xn4 20:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I think I can see where you are coming from, General joffe, and, yes, it probably is possible to make out, in very broad outline, some form of Spenglerian model of decline and fall. The chief difference is that in the case of the Roman Empire the transformations took place over centuries, whereas in the British case events can be telescoped into the half century between about 1900 and 1950. It might be said that when empires cease to expand they start to decline. Roman expansion really comes to an end with the death of Trajan in 117AD. Thereafter the empire went from consolidation to defense and, in time, to the defensive. By the late nineteenth century the British Empire had reached the same defensive stage; its purpose was to deter aggression, not to prosecute war. The Empire emerged from the Great War in some ways not that much better than the Romans after the Crisis of the Third Century-the enemy had been defeated but victory had brought a whole series of new and insurmountable economic, political and structural problems. So, was there a British Adrianople and when did it come? In contrast to Xn4 I would say that there was. It came in 1942 with the Fall of Singapore, itself the very symbol of imperial defence. It was, as Churchill put it, "the greatest disaster and largest capitulation in British history." It did not just bring defeat it shattered the very idea of Empire. The resurrection of 1945 was the hollowest of shells. For the forts on the Rhine were now empty. Clio the Muse 00:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Clio is good at this, and I can agree with the Fall of Singapore as a possible parallel for the second battle of Adrianople... if one were to take the view that the British Empire was fatally wounded by the loss of India, then perhaps another possibility as a symbolic parallel is Gandhi's Great Salt March of 1930. Xn4 01:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I always thought that after India, countries were given up voluntarily by Britain when the inhabitants wished to do so AND were thought to be sufficiently educated and able to run their own affairs. I would be very interested to read any facts about this not being the case. In the 1960s at least, several countries became independant with mutual friendship and celebration on both sides. 80.0.112.4 (talk) 10:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Keyboard notes and the treble clef

Hi, I've been trying to play the keyboards in my room although I am having a lot of trouble alternating my fingering on the black and white keys (flats, sharps, and naturals). I already know how to play the white keys from highest to low in the two black key region, A, B, C, D, E, F, G. And then the blacks, A#/Bb, B#/Cb, D#/ Eb, F#/Gb, G#/Ab. But for the most part I am having quite a bit of trouble trying to know all the notes on the treble clef. There's FACE, EGBDAF, though I am unsure if that's all of them. Does anyone know all the notes to the treble clef including the confusing middle C and lines and spaces?--70.251.209.117 14:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

This might be of help in identifying the notes. I'm not sure if you also have a question about fingering; if so, can you be more specific? Do you want to know the conventional fingerings for playing scales? jeffjon 14:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I believe the question is about which notes are assigned to which lines and spaces on the staff in the treble clef. The article on Modern musical symbols has a fairly exhaustive list of, well, musical notation but it doesn't specify the assignment of notes in the various clefs. The article Clef includes an image which does show the assignment in the treble clef from immediately below (D above middle C) to immediately above (G above high C). It doesn't provide much help for notes on ledger lines, such as middle C. I think images showing the assignments in each clef would probably be a useful addition to these articles, but I'm not capable of making such an image myself. - EronTalk 15:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I think you're probably right, which is why I linked the image above. The OP's first two sentences, though, suggest scale fingerings to me. If so, they might check out scale fingerings here. jeffjon 17:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

:Trying to work out what you are asking, do you have some manuscript paper in front of you, or could you draw out the basic stave on some paper? Just five lines equally spaced. Now try and draw a treble clef, remembering that you don't have to make it look exactly like the ones you see in print. Just make sure the basic shape is right, and the spiral is around the right line.

:Now see if you can write a C-major scale. Forget about FACE and EGBDAF for now, just write a C-major scale. To do this, start with a middle C (I'd use crochets/quarter notes, but you can use whichever sort you like). Middle C is the one you draw on one ledger line below your stave, so that's one short line underneath your other lines, about as far apart from the bottom line as the bottom line is from the one above. Draw your note on the line, so that a little bit of the line pokes out each side of the note (if the line is too long, rub it out). This is middle C.

:Now write your D above middle C; this is just the next note up, directly underneath the bottom line. The next note up after that (E) is on the first line, skewered by it, and the next note (F) is in the first space. Keep going, putting notes alternately in lines and spaces, and you can label them with the scale (C, D, E, F, G, A, B, C). Your second C should be in the space above the centre line.

:You can keep going up if you like, but if you go about the second G you'll need more ledger lines (and I think will confuse yourself at present). Write out a C-major scale, then you can use it for reference. Hope this helps or, if it doesn't, enables you to ask your question more clearly! Skittle 15:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

(Illustrated the above) — Michael J 05:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
To amplify, perhaps unnecessarily, on the above: for each of the clefs, the basic notes that occur successively on and between the lines, as you go up, are the same as the white keys of the keyboard from left to right: A, B, C, D, E, F, G over and over again. If you have fixed one, the rest follows. For example, for the treble clef (also known as the G-clef; it originated from the shape of the letter G) the end of the inner curl ends when it goes through the line for a G note, so then the space below it is F because F precedes G in the alphabet. Other tones (A♯/B♭ and such) are notated by using an accidental (sharp ♯ or flat ♭) before the note in the same bar, or by giving the sharps and flats in the key signature. This then corresponds to the key next to the original white key: for a sharp the neighbour key to the right and for a flat the neighbour key to the left – which usually is a black key, but may also be a white key neighbouring a white key). FACE and EGBDFA (not EGBDAF!) come from taking alternate letters in ABCDEFGABCDEFGABCDEFGABCDEFG.  --Lambiam 18:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] euro to canadian dollar

anybody know this? how much are euros to a canadian dollar? if im wrong, vice versa?Jwking 16:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Try this Google search: 1 euro in canadian dollars.  --Lambiam 17:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
However, if you want precise numbers, you have to talk about what kind of exchange rate you mean, and Google doesn't tell you what kind it's giving you. If you walk into a Canadian bank with euros and ask for dollars, you'll get one rate. If you have a check denominated in euros, you might get a different rate. If you walk in and ask to buy euros, the rate will certainly be different, because all of these "consumer" exchange rates have a commission figured in (which is likely to be several percent). If you are a bank, there won't be the same commission, but exchanging large amounts of money is more like the stock market: the rate for a specific transaction is whatever the other trader is willing to agree to. That's why web sites may report "closing" or "noon" exchange rates.
Just as a "for instance", I went to the Royal Bank of Canada web site and selected "personal" and the "foreign exchange". It said that buying 1,000 euros would cost me $1,435.70 Canadian, for a rate of $1.4357; for but if I was selling euros it'd be $1.3660. It also said that these were the rates for paper instruments such as checks; I followed the "cash" link and that page said the rate was $1.4580 for buying, $1.3434 for selling. It also says that transactions above $100,000 US dollars in value might have a different rate and you should ask. Meanwhile Google just says "1 Euro = 1.39353656 Canadian dollars". Since that's in the middle, perhaps it's the current inter-bank rate, but they don't say. Which rate you want depends on why you want to know. --Anonymous, 00:18 UTC (copyedited later), November 14, 2007.

[edit] Toffee Apples?

I have a German account of the Battle of the Somme which makes reference to the British firing 'toffee apples' into their trenches. Obviously this is an expression for some kind of shell or explosive; it sure as hell is not a candy apple! The question is what kind of explosive? I thought they might be hand grenades, but toffee apple does not really describe the British Mills bomb adequately, more of a pineapple shape. Besides these attacks are not followed by infantry assaults. Thanks for your help. 86.151.241.167 17:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

They may have been sticky bombs, which, in our article on this type of hand grenades, are compared to toffee apples.  --Lambiam 17:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
No, not the sticky bomb, Lambian. These did not come until the Second World War. Clio the Muse 00:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
"Toffee apples" probably refers to mortar bombs. The drain-pipe Stokes Mortar from which modern ones descend wasn't the only style of bomb-firing device on offer, and indeed it didn't appear until half way through the war. You can see an image of a "toffee apple" bomb here. They were fired from the British 2 inch medium mortar, a fairly cumbersome, unsafe, and unreliable contraption. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
There is a passage in the war memoir of Ernst Jünger with a description of the said 'toffee apple';
I was sent to the 6th company, and, a few days after my arrival, moved into the line at the head of my platoon, where I was straightway welcomed by a few English 'toffee apples.' These are brittle iron shells, filled with high explosive, somewhat resembling fruit on a stalk; or imagine a fifty-kilogram dumbbell, with one of the weights missing. (Storm of Steel, 2004, p. 42). Clio the Muse 00:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wilde sent down

Oscar Wilde seems to have been sent down from Oxford in the spring of 1877. Does anyone know why?MindyE 19:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The Oscholars Library (quoting from Oscar Wilde and Greece by Patrick Sammon) says - "When Oscar Wilde was rusticated (temporarily suspended) from Oxford for returning from a visit to Greece three weeks late for the beginning of term, he announced, 'I was sent down from Oxford for being the first undergraduate to visit Olympia.'" 86.21.74.40 19:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
If I remember correctly he was also having problems with his tutor at the time. Clio the Muse 01:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Parnell

I was wondering if the O'Shea divorce case was sufficient cause to explain the political demise of Charles Stewart Parnell? Irishbard 19:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. This aspect of Parnell is well covered at our article Charles Stewart Parnell. Xn4 21:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
This is a topic that has been the subject to quite a bit of scholarly debate. There are those who continue to hold to the traditional view that the O'Shea scandal as the sole cause of his political destruction, but some specialists have given greater weight to other factors, like the failure of the 1886 Irish Home Rule Bill, problems of unity within the Nationalist Party, and the links that Parnell was allegedly cultivating with the more extreme sections of Irish opinion, including the Fenians. The argument here is that decline was already in progress; William O'Shea's action for divorce merely supplied the coup de grâce. The texts I am thinking of specifically are Parnell in Perspective by G. Boyce and A. O'Day and The Parnell Split, 1890-1 by F. Callanan. Clio the Muse 01:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
You use the words "sufficient cause", Irishbard, and that's more of a legal concept than a political one. Undoubtedly, the O'Shea business was the silver bullet which did for Parnell. Why did so many people, including Tim Healy and other leading Nationalists, plus the Roman Catholic bishops, want him done for? That may not be explained by the adultery itself, not a unique fault in a 19th century politician. As Clio suggests, there must be more to it than that, but part at least of the explanation must be the very real effect of a divorce scandal on a national leader whose supporters were mostly Roman Catholics. Xn4 18:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Whats John Edwards position on death penalty?

And is there, indeed, any candidate from either party that is against it? Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.105.53.127 (talk) 20:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Ron Paul is against the death penalty. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ex-yp10yLvs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.28.144.36 (talk) 20:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Dennis Kucinich.--Eriastrum 21:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes,thank you,but Mr. Paul is opposed to "federal death penalty",yet he do not dares to say he is against death penalty in general.Plus he said he used to support it.

As for Kucinich,I think that is not correct,I am pretty sure he said he is in favour of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.105.53.127 (talk) 21:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a guess, but Paul would probably say that it's not the federal government's place to dictate to the states whether or not the death penalty is permissible (save via Supreme Court interpretation). Minimalistic Libertarian policies and all that. — Lomn 22:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
As for Kucinich, he's against the death penalty [1]. Donald Hosek 00:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
John Edwards is for the death penalty. He says that some crimes "deserve the ultimate penalty". See ontheissues.com--Eriastrum 20:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Salem Witch Trials

Is it true that dogs were hanged in the Salem Witch Trials? I forget where I read this, and I wasn't sure if it was true. Thanks! Grango242 22:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

One dog, according to our article Tituba. Xn4 00:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Our article on Tituba says nothing of the sort! It says a dog was fed "a witchcake, a cake made from rye and the urine of the afflicted girls" and then went into fits. It never says the dog was hanged. 62.145.19.66 13:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Please look at the version of the article when I wrote the above, and not what it says now. Here, under the heading 'Salem witch trials', you'll see that the following sentence was deleted by Dureo at 0820 UTC today, one of several significant changes to the article. "Tituba was the first person accused of being a witch in Salem Village which eventually led to several others (men, women, a child, and 2 dogs of which one was hanged) in Salem and the surrounding areas to be accused of witchcraft." This was sourced from Mary Beth Norton's In the Devil's Snare: The Salem Witchcraft crisis of 1692 (New York: Alfred K. Knopf, 2002). Dureo summarized the edit as "wee bit of cleanup", which doesn't seem to me to explain what was going on. Xn4 17:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
The poor dogs were framed by evil cats, of course. —Kevin Myers 15:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Dureo contributes to this page and first edited Tituba a few hours after it was linked above. It strikes me as a bit odd to follow a link from here to a Wikipedia article and then to take out the content referred to. Dureo? Xn4 02:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Value of Dutch currency, 1943

In a report of an incident in the Occupied Netherlands, a collection of four diamond rings (one with a single 18 carat stone) was valuated at 30.000 florins. How to find out what that would be worth in today's currency? (USD or Euro) -- Thanks, Deborahjay 23:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Under German occupation, the Dutch florin was pegged to the Reichsmark, with one florin being worth 1.327 Reichsmarks from July 1940 until the liberation. In 1945, the Allied forces set an exchange rate of 2.652 florins to the US dollar, and that remained the rate for the post-war Bretton Woods system until 1949. If you think of the 30,000 florins as worth about US$11,000 at the time, and today's US dollar as worth about one fifteenth of its value then, you could say the 30,000 florins is something like US$165,000 now. But this is only a very rough guide - changes in prices and incomes are too complicated to button down precisely. Xn4 00:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I assume Deborah's "30.000" means thirty thousand (30,000 in English).
Xn4 is quite right that this sort of conversion-across-time should be regarded as "very rough". But here's an answer for what it's worth... and also about what it's worth... or at least, about about what it's worth (grin).
I started by googling on historic, value, and us-dollar, looking for something that would convert US currency from 1940s values to modern ones; I figured that would be easier to find than the same for Dutch money. However, the 6th hit was this site, which seemed like a good place to find what was really wanted. I searched in that page for "Netherlands" and saw the link to the IISH List of Datafiles of Historical Prices and Wages, here. On this page I saw the link to an overview of the value of the guilder from 1450 onwards, here. And that page says that 30,000 guilders in 1943 would equal 164,771.87 euros in 2006 -- obviously excessive precision, but it would be reasonable to say that what it's worth would be "today about €170,000 or $250,000 US". --Anonymous, 00:47 UTC, today November 14, 2007.
That should be a better rough value than mine, if the program the iisg.nl site is running is based on good figures. I've tried it for different years and got some puzzling results. In any event, we're struggling, because the value of money in Europe during (and after) the Second World War was distorted in many ways. Xn4 01:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)