Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 July 7

Humanities desk
< July 6	<< Jun | July | Aug >>	July 8 >

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.

July 7

chinese lunar/solar calendar

I am attempting to get information about the chinese lunar/solar calendar and the elements for the years 1871 and 1875. 1871 for CST, 38N57, 92W20 and 1875 for EST 43N15, 76W43. I would appreciate any and all information aboutand in regards to these inquiries. Please e-mail me if I am not present. (email address removed) Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karlaschu (talk • contribs) 00:04, 7 July 2007

Our article on the Chinese calendar has lots of information. —Steve Summit (talk) 00:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

How much is a cello?

I was wondering how much a full-size cello is in USD? Thank you in advance.

According to this buying guide, a beginner's cello will run about $1000 without the bow. — Laura Scudder ☎ 00:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

You can buy cellos on eBay for less than a quarter of that. I have no idea about the quality of those. --169.230.94.28 02:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Depends whether you want the whole thing or you want to buy with no strings attached! ;-)

On the topic of "no strings attatched", you might want to think twice about the costs of buying them online. The bridge could be removed and packaged separately within the box, in which case setting it up is a professional job. I wouldn't be surprised if a good luthier charged upwards of US$45-50/hr. If it were shipped with the strings attatched (literally!) and tightened, with the bridge set up, then that would probably pose significant problems for its structural integrity given the pressure strings would put on the instrument (this pressure, plus a bump, probably means more trouble than a bump on a cello without strings set up), hence supplying it without strings attatched. Of course, the easiest solution is to buy in person from a professional store, which also means strings attatched. Please correct me if I am wrong. I am a musician, though not a cellist. martianlostinspace 18:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

In fact, at least one of the ebay cello-sellers says "Note: These Cellos are shipped with the bridge off of the Cello to prevent damage to the top during shipment. The are simply placed between the f-holes and stay in place when the strings are tightened up." I don't see why putting the bridge in place should be a professional job. Assuming the person buying the cello either has a teacher who strings it for them, or knows enough about cello-playing to string their own, it's not hard. And it shouldn't take longer than an hour, so even getting someone at an instrument shop to string it for you and put the bridge in place, even if they charge $100 an hour, could be easily cheaper than buying it from a shop. But, if the buyer cannot string the thing from scratch themselves, and doesn't have a teacher who could do it (who may well charge for the time), then they would be well advised to explore the various shops in their area that sell instruments, get an idea of price and quality, and ask the staff about the possibility of them helping him set a cello up. I know that the staff at my local music shop will happily string, set up and adjust just about any instrument you bring in, but not all shops are equal. Skittle 21:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Inside the cello is a sound post which connects the top of the cello to the back. Without the tension from the strings holding the sound post in place, it can become dislodged, and the placement of it is not a simple matter. I think $1000 is perhaps a bit high for a beginner's cello, but the basic advice, to buy from a local shop (preferably one with a luthier on staff) is well worthwhile. Setup makes a big difference with string instruments. When I bought my double bass, I tried theoretically identical models at two different shops. The only difference was the in-house set-up and was immediately obvious that the shop that I bought from had done a far better job of setting up the bass. Donald Hosek 04:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I had forgotten the sound post. Skittle 12:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

British, Scottish, English?

While working on the article Henry Woodward (colonist) I hit a stumbling block of nomenclature. The European colonies in North America are often classed into the broad categories of English, French, and Spanish (among others). The word "British" is often used instead of English, which makes sense when talking about the period after the Acts of Union 1707. But what if you are talking about a bit of history that spans 1707, or falls just to one side or the other? For example, Henry Woodward was an important figure in the earliest years of the "English" colony of South Carolina (although Scots were a major part of the colony starting in the 1680s). Woodward died in the 1690s, before 1707 Acts of Union. His early life, place of birth, and ancestry are only vague guesses. So can we call him an "English colonist"? "British"? "Maybe Scottish"? The page British is helpful, but did not really answer my question. The key point is that he was not part of the French or Spanish colonies, but those English/British ones.

Similarly there are other early South Carolinians whose Scottish background is more clearly known (although not always with total certainty), but whose careers straddle the 1707 Acts of Union. For these people, and for early South Carolina itself, should one use the word "English", even if someone was or might have been Scottish? Would "British" be better, since it more clearly includes Scots? What about someone who died shortly before the Acts of Union and might have been Scottish (but might have been English)?

After some thought, I decided to use the word "British" for Woodward, being at a loss for any better term. Putting the question another way, before 1707 was South Carolina an English colony or a British colony, or somthing else? Thoughts? Thanks. Pfly 07:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Greetings, Pfly, from England, Britain, Great Britain, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and so on and so forth! I think you probably get the picture!!

OK, it's an awkward one, I admit, because prior to 1707 the Colonies were all subject to the Parliament of England. Under the Navigation Acts this meant that Scotland and Ireland, although subject to the same crown, were, for the purposes of trade, treated as foreign powers, and thus exluded from direct commercial contact with England's overseas possessions, a practice that was only ended in the case of Scotland with the 1707 Act of Union. However, after the Union of the Crowns in 1603, the Scots had protection of the law in all areas subject to the crown, which meant that they could settle in England, Wales, Virginia, the Carolinas, or wherever they were inclined to go. I suppose you could use the term Scots or British to describe the settlers in America. There was certainly a notion of Britishness after 1603, and James VI and I liked to style himself as 'King of Great Britain', though legally speaking no such entity existed. By the middle of the seventeenth century, moreover, the Protestant settlers in the north of Ireland were almost always referred to as British. In your position I suppose I would just make reference to the existence of Scots settlers in North America. Clio the Muse 08:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

You can call the person by whichever division suits you, but the colonies are English colonies, in that the nation-state that licensed and sponsored the settlement was England, regardless of the nationality of the settlers themselves. There were Irish and Scots, for example, who lived in the French colonies (esp. when you get to Jacobite exiles), but "colony" is a political unit rather than a demographic one. Geogre 12:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

An aside: there was a genuinely Scottish colony, the "looks good on paper" Darien scheme, but it was in Panama. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm currently involved in a related discussion at Talk:Kenneth Branagh, which you may or may not find pertinent. It seems that, while people from England, Scotland and Wales are British whether they like it or not, people from Northern Ireland are British only if they consider themselves to be so, and not otherwise. I'm not at all sure how a NI person who considered himself not to be British would cope if he were somehow associated with an overseas "British" colony. (I acknowledge this may involve an outrageous mix-up of history). -- JackofOz 00:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Is Anglo-Irish politically incorrect? Corvus cornix 02:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

It was a term never in wide use in the north, Corvus cornix, where many of the settlers were Presbyterian Scots. In relation to Jack's point, I imagine that just about all the Protestant communities in Northern Ireland would be happy with the British label. The Catholics, of course, have the wider Irish brand to fall back on. Clio the Muse 02:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

There was a genuine Scottish colony within South Carolina too, Stuarts Town. It only lasted from 1684-1686 or so, and is often written off as inconsequential. But I've been learning about how the Stuarts Town Scots set a lot of things in motion that rest of the colony would continue following for a long time after Stuarts Town was no more. And apparently quite a few of the Stuarts Town Scots stuck around and became key figures of early South Carolina. Trying to add a bit to wikipedia on the topic led me to ask this question in the first place.

Thanks for the replies. This helps me be more politically and historically correct. I had thought it might be historically "wrong" to call anything "British" before 1707, so its good to hear that the word and notion are not quite so strict in meaning, historically speaking. And that makes sense about the colonies being "English" (as opposed to French and Spanish), at least during the 17th century, while for an individual different terms may be more accurate.

In any case, this issue of what words to use for ethnic and national groups when writing on historical topics gets much more difficult when describing, for example, 17th century South Carolina's Indian allies.. er, Native American.. um I mean specifically Creek, or maybe proto-Creek, ...no, better to say Hitchiti and Coushatta, er... nevermind. Pfly 02:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The Creek are fascinating, of course. I, for example, have the lofty 1/32nd Creek genetics, and the alliances in Georgia, where the backstabbing was really messed up around 1820, were depressing examples of landlust. (That 1 in the 32 was a Creek woman who married an ancestor, coincidentally I'm sure, at the time of the settler land grab and just, just before the Trail of Tears.) Geogre 12:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Marriage in the 18th Century

Hi, I am to do a project on marriage in the late 18th century, are there any recommended sites? Thanks.

Well, for one rather cynical view you could do no better than refer to Marriage a la mode. This is a depiction of a particular kind of marriage in the middle part of the eighteenth century, earlier than you have indicated, though I do not imagine things had changed that much as the period drew to a close. Why not have a look through A Vindication of the Rights of Woman by Mary Wollstonecraft, and I mean the book itself, not the Wikipedia page? You will get plenty of information for your project there. You might also try Love and Marriage: A Study in the Social History of Marriage edited by R. B. Outhwaite, Eighteenth Century Women: an Anthology by Bridget Hill, and Family, Sex and Marriage in England, 1500-1800 by Lawrence Stone. Web sites? Well, there is this one [1] Clio the Muse 09:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot!

It should be pointed out that Wollstonecraft's views were not typical of the majority of the people of her day, but she was influential as a feminist. The Jade Knight 10:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Family and Friends in 18th-Century England by Naomi Tadmor, though more about, well, family and friends, might also have some useful information. Disordered lives: eighteenth-century families and their unruly relatives by Hugo Soly & Catherina Lis might also contain some helpful titbits. It depends on which perspective or aspect you're interested in... The journals The History of the Family and Journal of Family History could also be of use. You'll be able to search for articles and look at abstracts for free, but you'll have to gain access to the full articles by some other means. (If need be, feel free to drop me a line, I might be able to download them for you). Random Nonsense 09:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Late 18th century is going to split radically between the classes in most of Europe. You haven't said which nation you're talking about. If it's England, then you're in the territory of the Janiacs (the Austen fans), and they have a big footprint on the web with all sorts of things about marriage. Stone stops before the late century, and Braudel isn't easy to tease out. Geogre 12:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

A Janiac? How wonderful! I am a Janiac; I have always been a Janiac, and I am glad that an expression has been coined that captures my love of the great lady. Mr. Darcy, I am yours! Clio the Muse 22:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Janiacs? How about Janeites? DuncanHill 23:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

That's the self-applied term. I am not one of them. I love Jane Austen's style. I do not love her world, which is claustrophobic, to me. I love her intelligence. I do not love the romances in her novels. There are Janeites -- self-applied -- and Janiacs (not), just as there are Behnites and Behniacs. I stay early, so I rarely have to interact with the Janes much, but the Behniacs are, in my view, leading the world awry. Geogre 12:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I am continually bemused by the huge number of books about Elizabeth and Darcy out now, taking up where Pride and Prejudice left off. I'm speaking of 20 to 30 individual novels by several different authors. Corvus cornix 02:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Michaelangelo

Michelangelo was known for his irreverent sense of humour. --Ghirla^-трёп- 11:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I recall to have read a book about Michelangelo a long time ago. The book was illustrated by Michelangelo's drawing of himself in the shape of a penis, and also a painting of the bare-assed God the Father, probably from the Sistine chapel ceiling. I tried to find these images on the web, but in vain. Could you help me? Nandcloud

More of a foreskin, really, You are remembering Michelangelo's self-portrait as a flayed skin, a detail in his "Last Judgment" in the Sistine Chapel. --Wetman 08:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe some phallic fantasy may be found in the corpus of Michelangelo's drawings, I really don't know. On a related note, he depicted David (who is supposed to have been a Jew) with an uncircumcised penis. Is there any explanation for this? --Ghirla^-трёп- 12:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I've always suspected that Michalengelo found the uncircumsised penis more attractive. DuncanHill 12:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Il Divino's sexuality aside, other Italian painters represented Jesus the youth as uncircumcised. I suppose they had no incentive to spotlight the Jewishness of these figures. --Ghirla^-трёп- 12:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't help but mention Monty Python's the last but one supper skit, which contains the dialog: Pope: "that's the problem... the disciples" Michelangelo "Are they too Jewish? I made Judas the most Jewish!" -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Schooldays in Ancient Rome

What was schooling like in ancient Rome? Princess of the night 15:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

See Education in Ancient Rome. The Jade Knight 17:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I think I can maybe add a little flesh to the bare bones of the Wikipedia page, one or two snippets of information on what it was like to be a recipient of Roman schooling, all taken from Everyday Life for the Roman Schoolboy by Keith Hopkins, a superb essay on the subject in History Today, volume 43, number 10, published in October 1993.

Schooling began early in the day, usually at dawn. Primary schools were attended by both sexes, and some of the higher grammar schools were also mixed. Children from prosperous families were accompanied by a slave attendant or tutor, and perhaps also a younger slave to carry books and writing materials.

At school if the pupil worked well he was kissed by the master (gross, I know, but true!). If not he was flogged. Corporal punishment was a regular part of the school day. Some educational theorists were advanced enough to suggest that it was important to take account of mixed abilities; not so Quintilian, who argued that children were spoiled by kindness-"We ruin our children's character...by petting and soft upbringing." One father in Roman Egypt shared this view, writing to his son's teacher, "Beat him, because ever since he left his father he has had no other beatings and he likes getting a few; his back has got accustomed to them and needs its daily dose." This view was also shared by the great Augustine of Hippo, though in the Confessions he recalls his own school days with horror. In the end, the severe but just father becomes the severe but just God.

Much of the education given consisted of cramming young heads with Greek. Some educationalists maintained that those in the social elite should begin life with Greek nurses, though others countered by saying that this would ruin their Latin accents. Once the basics had been mastered, and the pupils could read and write Latin and Greek, they moved steadily up the educational ladder, reaching the rarified heights of subjects like rhetoric, where they would often be presented with problems like the following: The law ordains that in a case of rape, the woman may demand either the death of her assailant or marriage without a dowry. A man raped two women in one night. One woman demands his death; the other marriage. Discuss. Yes, this is a real example!

Some were inclined to poke fun at this kind of pedagogy, including Petronius, who wrote "Young men are made into fools at school; people fed this stuff can no more be sensible than kitchen workers can smell rice." But this view was far from typical, and educational relevance was not an issue of any great importance for most Romans. Even medicine had a largely unapplied and philosophical basis. The chief purpose of education was to distinguish between those who had mastered complex literary forms and those who had not. And finally, here is a list of questions and answers from a Roman school text which summed up a limited and rather gloomy view of life;

• What is a Man? A short lived ghost.
• What are Riches? Everyday power.
• What are Words? Blindness.
• What is Authority? Poverty.
• What is Wealth? A ridiculous page.
• What is Woman? A daily Drudge.
• What is Law? Necessity.
• What is Holiday? Work.
• What is Death? Freedom.
• What is Lonlieness? Kingship. Clio the Muse 23:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I sure hope you've added this material to the Wikipedia article. The Jade Knight 00:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Were teachers usually slaves? That's the impression I get from fiction reading. Corvus cornix 02:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Personal tutors certainly were: possibly also most teachers. Slave or not, they still had the authority to lay on the lash! Clio the Muse 02:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Plus ca change.... (I'm reminded of Thomas Hoby saying that men would not hesitate to spend a fortune on a good horse and coach but would scream bloody murder at paying for a good education for their children, when the horses were not going to be the ones supporting the man in his old age.) Geogre 17:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Famous people

Who is the most famous person who ever lived?

Arnnie G. 68.116.170.141 15:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Looking at sheer numbers of people who have heard of the person, or been influenced by him and his thought, (and I'm including dead people), I'd say Confucius. If we look only at living people, I'm going to go out on a limb and say Jesus. But these are personal guesses; I'd love to hear other opinions. Antandrus (talk) 16:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Whether Jesus can be considered "living" is up to one's belief system though. Or am I reading that incorrectly? Dismas|^(talk) 16:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking of total people influenced, including people now dead; there's a lot in East Asia in the last 2,000 years, and Christianity hasn't always been so widespread as it is today. It would be better to go about this scientifically, but I don't know how to do it ... the Buddha certainly would be up there in the top few as well. Antandrus (talk) 16:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad can't be discounted, either—though the others have a head-start on him, his life has been quite influential. But yes, Buddha, Jesus, and Confucius have all been very influential. I think it can be agreed that it was almost certainly some figure that has been taken to have religious significance. My guess would be, out of all of these, Jesus is currently the most well-known. The Jade Knight 17:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Moses, on the basis that he is "famous" in Judaism, Christianity and Islam? Or Abraham? Batmanand | Talk 17:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

As the questioner asked on the most famous who ever lived, whether Jesus is alive or not today isn't really the point. Even if someone argues that He is dead, then to disqualify Him as an answer to the question, you would have to argue that He never existed, in which case He would, at the very least, be a top contender for the title of "Most Influential Man who Never Lived".martianlostinspace 18:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem with religious figures like Jesus is that it is often hard to conclusively prove their existence as a historical person. See our article Jesus myth hypothesis for example. S.dedalus 18:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that the "living" comment didn't refer to Jesus as living but his followers. The editor may have been trying to say that more people alive today have been influenced by Jesus than by Confucius, but if we look at all humans who have ever lived, Confucius may have influenced more of them than Jesus. However, given that the majority of people who have ever lived likely died as infants, I think a generic "mommy" might be a better answer. --Charlene 18:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Mommy might work if we were looking for a "type" of person, but the spirit of the question appears to imply a single individual. In that case I'd say (at least of the ones listed so far) that Moses is in the top position. Abraham, also mentioned, is probably as well known, but we know more about Moses' life than about his... so if by "famous" we are also taking into account the amount know about the person, that plays a part. Jesus is a legitimate suggestion, questions about historicity notwithstanding, but everyone influenced by Him was also influenced by Moses, and not vice versa (i.e., via Judaism and Islam via Muhammad). ◄Zahakiel► 19:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Julius Ceaser. He has the advantage of being confirmed as an actual human being as opposed to Moses or Jesus who may or may not existed aka merely a fictional character. 211.28.121.144 07:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Muhammad, whose existance is not doubted by any serious modern scholar, is better known than Julius Caesar. The Jade Knight 00:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Elvis baby, ah thank you very much uhu Perry-mankster 12:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Pre-history

Why did some peoples develop technology and some did not?

All 'peoples' developed technology, to one extent or another. Could you be more specific? Random Nonsense 16:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Read Guns, Germs and Steel. Essentially, certain areas have certain resources, (fertile soils, domesticatable beasts of burden, etc.), which allow them to spend less time on the day to day activities of agriculture and survival. Once they have this spare time, its possible to explore other avenues of time saving, if there are exploitable resources nearby, then all the necessary preconditions for technological development. 82.36.179.20 17:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Strongly second this. Guns, Germs and Steel goes into excrutiating detail as to why certain societies developed further than others, and it almost always has to do with resources and geography. Corvus cornix 02:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

But, as Random Nonsense says, every human society has developed some technology. Stone axes, cave painting, fire, the wheel, pottery, hunting, fishing, making huts - these all involve the use of tools to change and control the environment, so they are all technologies. Gandalf61 13:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but there is the matter of culture as well: evidence suggests early hunter/gatherers actually spent less of their time gathering food than early agriculturalists. They had the potential to generate a surplus (which is important because it enables a society to support non-food producing specialists), but in general, they didn't - although there were hunter/gatherer societies that did develop some level of political and social complexion. Diamond provides an excellent account of how different environments had a different 'enabling' effect on different societies, but doesn't explain why these societies changed the way they did, unless we start going all environmentally deterministic (which Diamond doesn't, by the way). Tainter's The Collapse of Complex Societies touches upon this issue (the evolution of complexity) and might interest you as well. Max Weber's work could also be of interest, as he highlights the importance of different ‘mindsets'. More on the environmental and ecological impact on societies, and the effect of Western Europe's 'ecological dominance', can be found in Alfred Crosby's work - I particularly recommend Germs, Seeds & Animals. Not that there isn't plenty more literature on these subjects... Random Nonsense 22:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

There is also of course, pure luck. It may be the moment of genius insight of one individual, which leads to a whole cascade of technology following on. So the luck to have that insight, at the right time and place for it all to develop. Cyta 19:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Trebitsch Lincoln

I'm in the process of starting a short story loosely based on the life of Trebitsch Lincoln. I was hoping to fill out some of the biographical details here but the Wikipedia page on the man is possibly the worst that I have ever seen; it reads like a burst from a machine gun!!! What is even worse, it says at the outset that he 'is hard to describe'. And this is supposed to be an 'encyclopedia'? Can Clio or anyone else please give me a joined-up, potted biography? I would be most grateful for your assistance. Many thanks. Bryson Bill 16:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Try following the footnotes in the article. Fascinating man... --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

To write a story about Trebitsch Lincoln one would have to scale down the real truth to correspond to the forms of verisimilitude demanded by any decent fiction! His is a life so fanciful that it really could not be made up; or to do so would be to risk accusations of absurdity and implausibility. A Hungarian Jew by birth, he went on to become a Liberal MP in the British House of Commons, who subsequently took part in an abortive right-wing coup in Germany, meeting Hitler in the process, finally dying in China in 1943 as a Buddhist monk and a Japanese agent! I agree that the Wikipedia article is unsatisfactory and evasive, perhaps because this is a life that seems to defy description in any normal sense. I have not read all of the links flagged up by jpgordon, but to save you looking over multiple pages, Bryson Bill, here are the broad facts in outline. The text you need to refer to for further information on any of what follows is The Secret Life of Trebitsch Lincoln by Bernard Wasserstein.

Ignacz Lincoln was born in the town of Paks in Hungary in 1879, subsequently moving with his family to Budapest. After leaving school he enrolled in the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art, but was frequently in trouble with the police over acts of petty theft. In 1897 he fled abroad, ending up in London, where he took up with some Christian missionaries and converted from Judaism. He was finally baptised on Christmas day 1899, and set off to study at a Lutheran seminary in Breklum in Schleswig-Holstein, destined for the ministry, As restless, and as shady as ever, he was sent to Canada to carry out missionary work among the Jews of Montreal, first on behalf of the Presbyterians, and then the Anglicans. He returned to England in 1903 after a quarrel over the size of his stipend.

He seems to have had a quite unique ability to talk himself into virtually any situation, and into any company. He made the acquaintance of the Archbishop of Canterbury, who appointed him as a curate in Kent, his last ecclesiastical post. Soon after he met Seebohm Rowntree, the chocolate millionare and prominent member of the Liberal Party, who offered him the position of his private secretary. With Rowntree's support, he was nominated in 1909 as the prospective Liberal candidate for the Parliamentary constituency of Darlington in Yorkshire, even though he was still a Hungarian citizen at the time! In the election of January 1910 he beat the sitting Conservative, whose family had held the seat for generations. However, despite this dramatic entrance to political life, Trebitsch failed to make much of an impact, and did not stand when a second general election was called in December.

In the years leading up to the outbreak of the First World War he was involved in a variety of failed commercial endevours, living for a time in Bucharest, hoping to make money in the oil industry. Back in London with no money, he offered his services to the British government as a spy. When he was rejected he went to Holland and made contact with the Germans, who employed him as a double-agent. Returning to England, he narrowly escaped arrest, leaving for the United States in 1915, where he made contact with the German military attache, a man by the name of Franz von Papen. Papen was instructed by Berlin to have nothing to do with him, whereupon Trebitsch sold his 'story' to the New York World Magazine, which published under the banner headline REVELATION OF I. T. T. LINCOLN, FORMER MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT WHO BECAME A SPY. The British government, anxious to avoid any embarrassment, employed the Pinkerton agency to track down the renegade. He was finally returned to England, not on a charge of espionage, which was not covered by the Anglo-American extradition treaty, but of fraud, far more apt in the circumstances. He served three years in Parkhurst Prison on the Isle of Wight, and was finally released and deported in 1919.

A penniless refugee, he worked his way bit by bit into the extreme right-wing and militarist fringe in Weimar Germany, making the acquiantance of Wolfgang Kapp and Erich Ludendorff among others. In 1920, following the Kapp Putsch, he was appointed press censor to the new 'government.' In this capacity he met a young politician, who flew in from Munich the day before the Putsch collapsed. His name was Adolf Hitler. He was never to forget his encounter with the notorious Trebitsch.

With the fall of Kapp, Trebitsch fled south, from Munich, to Vienna to Budapest, intriguing all along the way, linking up with whole variety of fringe political factions, finally taking part in a loose alliance of monarchists and reactionaries from all over Europe known as the White International. Entrusted with the organisation's archives, he promptly sold the information to the secret services of various governments. Tried and acquited on a charge of high treason in Austria, he was deported yet again, finally ending up in China, where he took up employment under three different warlords.

After a mystic experience in the late 1920s he converted to Buddhism, becoming a monk. In 1931 he rose to the rank of abbot, establishing his own monastery in Shanghai. All initiates were required to hand over their possessions to Abbot Chao Kung, as he now called himself, who also spent his time seducing nuns. In 1937 he transferred his loyalties yet again, this time to the Japanese, producing anti-British propaganda on their behalf. After the outbreak of the Second World War, he also made contact with the Nazis, offering to broadcast for them, and to raise up all the Buddhists of the east against any remaining British influence in the area. The chief of the Gestapo in the far east, SS Colonel Joesph Mesinger, urged that this scheme receive serious attention. It was even seriously suggested that Trebitsch be allowed to accompany German agents to Tibet, Indiana Jones style, to implement the scheme. Himmler was enthusiastic, as was Hess; although it all came to nothing after the latter flew to Scotland in May 1941. After this Hitler put an end to all crackpot, pesudo-mystical schemes. Even so, Trebitsch continued his work for the German and Japanese security services in Shanghai.

As I have said, this is a life that could never have been invented. Clio the Muse 01:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow, Clio! Maybe you should replace the article with that. bibliomaniac15 ^{BUY NOW!} 02:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

You may not believe this, Bibliomaniac, but what you read in the above is only a part of the whole story! Clio the Muse 02:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I copied Clio's reply to the article, and uploaded a photograph of Trebitsch posing as Chao Kung. --Ghirla^-трёп- 15:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Beautiful; it's a better article now. What a fascinating person. Thanks to Clio and Ghirlandajo. Antandrus (talk) 15:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for this tremendous response, and for the improvements to the article. Bryson Bill 07:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Statute of Limitations

Is there a statute of limitations for "driving under the influence"?

It varies from state to state, jurisdiction to jurisdiction. If a death was involved, there may be other complications as well. Additionally, there are situations where the statute of limitations may be extended, depending on the underlying facts and circumstances.

In other words, yes, but don't expect to get a clear and conclusive answer here; at least not one that applies to any specific individual or set of facts. If you do get one, it's almost certain to be incorrect, or at least ill-considered. It would also be inconsistent with the terms and conditions specified here and here. If you really are too frugal to get professional assistance, look it up in the penal code for your jurisdiction. dr.ef.tymac 16:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Searching the authors of the following quotes

Dear Sir/Madam,

I struggled to search for the authors of the following quotes, but none of the results I had on search engines were sourced to their original author. Am I dealing with proverbs ?

1st quote - Offense is the best defense

2nd quote - Il n’y a que les fous qui ne changent pas d’idée (a vulgar translation would be "only crazy people don't change their view of seeing things")

Thanks in advance, Matt714 20:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC).

The first quote is often attributed to Vince Lombardi (usually in the form "the best defense is a good offense"), but I believe the origin is actually Ovid who asks in Amores, "Isn't the best defense always a good attack?" (give me alittle while, I'll come up with the exact citation). Carom 20:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

This would be a great question to ask at the Wikiquote Reference Desk! The Jade Knight 03:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

That second one reminds me of a quote by George Bernard Shaw: "The reasonable man adapts himself to the conditions that surround him... The unreasonable man adapts surrounding conditions to himself... All progress depends on the unreasonable man." 152.16.59.190 05:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)