Humanities desk
< May 5	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 7 >

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.

May 6

Nobles

Hey everyone why where nobles in Russia between 1900 and 1914 so highly classed??? And where the nobles like royalty? And how did they become so rich??

Thank you Jade 03:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Russian nobility may answer some of your questions. Dismas|^(talk) 03:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful in your assumptions. The Russian nobility's position in the social hierarchy was often determined by status alone, and many of them were actually quite poor. Please see the page on the Table of ranks. Nikoli Gogol's novel Dead Souls is one, among a number of others, that provides a good literary depiction of the condition of a cross-section the minor land-owning nobility in late Tsarist Russia. Clio the Muse 05:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the titles for court ranks in the table of ranks, it is apparent that many are direct transliterations of the German titles of ranks in the court household, such as Oberhofmeister, Hofmarschall and Kammerjunker. Is there an easy explanation for this use of German titles, presumably copied from the Austrian (Habsburg) monarchy? --Lambiam ^Talk 09:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The system of ranking, Lambiam, was adopted during the reign of Peter the Great, when Russia was under all sorts of foreign influences. There was also quite a large number of men of German origin, serving in both the Imperial Civil Service and the army. Some of the more notable included Alexander von Benckendorff, Levin August, Count von Bennigsen, Friedrich Wilhelm von Buxhoeveden, Fabian Gottlieb von Osten-Sacken and Peter Wittgenstein, many of them Baltic-German. Indeed, it was once a popular view among the European right that Tsarist Russia had effectively been governed by a German ruling class. Here is a fairly typical view expressed by Hitler in Mein Kampf: For the Russian State was not organised by the constructive political talent of the Slav element in Russia but was nuch more a marvellous exemplification of the capacity for State-building possessed by the Germanic element in a race of inferior worth...For centuries Russia owed the source of its livelihood as a State to the Germanic nucleus of its governing class. But this nucleus is now almost wholly abolished. The Jew has taken its place. (London, 1939, p. 533) Clio the Muse 10:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Religious terminology

What is the term for the belief that those who believe in justification by faith alone will fall into a sinful life, knowing, as they would, that the inevitability of their salvation, provided their faith remain pure, gives them free reign to commit whatever heinous sin they could possibly imagine in this life, while remaining assured of an eternal life postmortem? I was trying to find the term on sola fide, but I couldn't find it. :( Thanks in advance! 207.35.41.4 03:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Antinomianism —Wayward ^Talk 03:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! It was on the tip of my tongue... 207.35.41.4 03:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And look, it's right there, halfway through the sola fide article! Boy, am I foolish! Many apologies, Wayward and the rest. 207.35.41.4 03:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wifes of Henry the eight

How many of them were executed? Martinben 10:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is two: Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard. One good way of remembering the fate of all six (I used it at school!) is divorced, beheaded, died; divorced, beheaded, survived! Clio the Muse 10:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you accept that he married six times. - Kittybrewster (talk) 22:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, technically, none of his wives were executed. The marriages to Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard were annulled, so by the time they were separated from their heads they were his ex-wives. JackofOz 22:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But an annullment means the marriage was retrospectively revoked. - Kittybrewster (talk) 22:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. The marriages had either ended before their executions, or they had never existed validly at all. Either way, they weren't his wives at the time they were beheaded. JackofOz 02:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Divorced,Beheaded,Died,Divorced,Beheaded,Survived.hotclaws 23:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Or, if you go by what Henry himself thought, Annulled, Annulled, Died, Annulled, Annulled, Survived. He never divorced any of his wives, and conveniently annulled his marriages to Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard before having them executed for adultery. (Nobody of course pointed out that if the marriage never existed, they weren't adulterers.) Edited to add: This is actually a bit of a sticking point with respect to Katherine of Aragon. Henry left the Roman church not because he couldn't get a divorce but because he couldn't get an annulment. He wanted Mary to be illegitimate so she wouldn't have a chance of inheriting the throne. The Pope might have allowed Henry a divorce but given his own predicament at the hands of the King of Spain he couldn't give Henry the annulment he wanted. --Charlene 01:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I visited the lawn at the tower where the evil acts were done. So sad. Edison 05:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Clean-limbed'

I've come across this phrase twice recently while reading about 17th century characters. Can anyone put it in context? Vranak

I gather that it's a translation of a phrase often used in ancient Greek to describe a well-formed youth. —Tamfang 17:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try using Google: "Having well-formed limbs; well-proportioned". Flamarande 18:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, cheers. Vranak

As the OED says, concerning the meanings of "clean" grouped under "Fair, fine, comely, neat, clever,": "The sense-development is here uncertain: cf. F. propre." For the specific meaning "Neatly-made, well-fashioned; not unwieldy; trim, shapely, comely," OED gives Chaucer first: "He hadde a paire / Of legges and of feet so clene and faire."

I suppose a compound ending in -limbed sounds ancient (though no common Greek synonym is leaping to my mind; actually "fair-limbed" per se is more frequent in Sanskrit). But this "clean" usage (which is probably what provoked the question, I'd imagine) seems peculiarly English. Wareh 14:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Best International Relations Schools

What are the best colleges/universities in the United States for international relations (undergrad), especially international politics and international economics?

Here is a U.S. News and World Report ranking of the top four schools at the graduate level. Presumably, the same schools would be near the top of the list at the undergraduate level, though these rankings are controversial. Marco polo 23:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Graduate and undergraduate rankings can be at a great variance in the US, as what is important for each is quite different. For an undergraduate, the most important thing is a competitive classroom and a gifted teacher. For graduate students, the institutional resources matter more. It's at that point that you need a library with excellent resources, faculty with heavy credentials, a fantastic history of publication, a faculty highly involved in their professional societies/journals, etc. A school that rejects "publish or perish" and which puts all its emphasis on teaching could be at the top of undergraduate education, but such would almost certainly be impossible for graduate education. The US News rankings.... I would only say that they're worth every penny they cost you (i.e. some, but not much). Geogre 11:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George Rudisil, what prison camp was he in?

Question moved here from the Help Desk. --Lambiam ^Talk 21:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

…George Rudisil was in Company E, 12th Regiment of Indiana Volunteers who was enrolled on the Ninth day of August, 1862 to serve 3 years. He was discharged on Feb 28th 1863 at the age of 18, by reason of Surgeon's certificate of disability. This was the result of a gun shot to his foot. (Note: According to his death certificate, he was born on Feb. 8, 1844, which would have made him 19 on February 28th, 1863.) He was in a Confederate prison camp for a while and we know not which one, can you research the camps and tell us? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rich fike (talk • contribs) 14:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Still searching for the Civil War prison camp that George Rudisil, one l, was in. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rich fike, 20:04, May 6, 2007 (UTC).

This Twelfth Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry Regimental Register lists, under the privates, Rudicil, George, discharged, February 28th, 1863. There can be little doubt that this is the same person.

The name occurs, spelled the same way, in Chapter II of From Vicksburg to Raleigh; or, A Complete History of the Twelfth Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry, And the Campaigns of Grant and Sherman, With An Outline of the Great Rebellion by M. D. Gage, Chaplain, Chicago, Clarke & Co., Publishers, 1865, where a George Rudicil is reported as killed. This supposedly happened in an engagement on August 30, 1862, near Richmond (presumably Richmond, Kentucky).

Clearly, the same person cannot have been killed in 1862 and discharged in 1863. One possible explanation is that in the confusion another dead private was identified as being G. R., and that this error was not later corrected in the documents our chaplain relied on when compiling this Complete History. We find some more names as both being killed and later discharged (such as John K. Zimmermann), next to names where the death report is confirmed in the register (e.g., Milton V. Petitt). The text also states: This second engagement resulted in the capture of the greater part of the force, so it is not implausible that G. R. was taken captive there and then. While this does not identify a prison camp, perhaps this information may help you to narrow your search.

Another explanation is that there was more than one George Rudicil in the regiment. This document from 1852 mentions both a George Rudicil and a George M. Rudicil as distinct people, one an executor and the other an appraiser, neither of which, for reasons of age, could have been our G. R. However, if there were two G. R.s in the regiment, then we should have had two entries for George Rudicil in the register.

Finally, perhaps Marjorie Priser, who maintains the 12th Regiment history page where I found links to the pages mentioned above, can help you contact a historian interested in such aspects of the Civil War. You can e-mail her using the link near the bottom of that page. It is unlikely we can do more here. --Lambiam ^Talk 22:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Differences between left and right wing

The differences between Lef wing and right wing?

See Left-right politics. Marco polo 23:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In a nut-shell, left-wingers believe that individuals should be taxed (often progressively) in order to finance a state that intervenes in the economy for social purposes.

Whilst right-wingers believe that tax is a necessary evil (or, in some cases, an unnecessary evil), and that, as far as possible, people should be free to keep their own money and spend it in such a way as benefits themselves individually, (reasoning that individuals are best situated to work out what their own money should be spent on).

There is also an issue of libertarianism vs authoritarianism, i.e. how prone a particular politicist is to impose their own wills over others. But trying to categorise that on a left-right axis is problematic, and it is good habit to use left and right as purely economic indicators. 194.80.32.12 00:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is largely a libertarian argument, 194, drawn, one assumes from an American context? There are plenty of examples of right wing governments that have also imposed high taxes; so an economic explanation is, in itself, not sufficient. Clio the Muse 00:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To the extent that either label still has any coherent meaning: the Left values equality among citizens, the Right values social stability. All else is an arbitrary matter of "strange bedfellows". —Tamfang 02:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On social issues, the left-wing tends to favor individual liberties, while right-wingers want to ban so-called "immoral activities" (gay marriage, abortion, marijuana, etc.). StuRat 02:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that it's as simple as that, Stu; try telling Uncle Joe that his regime (or any U.S.S.R. regime) favoured individual liberties. ;-)

The Nazis called themselves socialists; they believed in government service to the community through community service to the government and strong ties between business, government and military. Yet they are often held up as an example of extreme right-wing-ism. And my good friend, raised a secular Jew in Canada (and a long-time rabid, if I may say so, socialist), now calls herself a militant right-winger, because of her newfound religious ultra-orthodoxy. Israel is an interesting melding of socialist values (collective farming, utility monopoly, etc) laissez-faire capitalism (unregulated markets), legislated secularism and conservative theocracy. Anchoress 04:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The binary Left/Right model oversimplifies many aspects of political opinion. This may be of some use in a political speech, if you want to demonise your opponents as "communists" or "fascists". It is less useful in other situations. Our political spectrum article discusses more nuanced multi-axis models of political thought. One example is the Political Compass, which separates the economic dimension from the social dimension, and distinguishes shades of opinion along each axis. Similar concepts appear in the Nolan chart and the Pournelle chart. Gandalf61 09:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The linguist George Lakoff has an interesting model about what the left/right categorizations really map on to (in the U.S. in particular) and why certain positions on issues seem to flow from these categorizations even if there isn't an immediately logical reason. Basically he argues that these two groups ascribe to different metaphors about the state itself; the "left" believe that the state is a nurturing mother and the "riht" believe that the state is a strict father, and that different mappings of what it means to be a "child" and an "adult" are responsible for many of the different political points of view.

In any case, though, as should be evident nobody is quite sure what left and right are supposed to map on to or if they are useful categorizations. I like Lakoff's model because it presumes that the categorizations are not wholly artificial (which seems to me to be the case) and that you can in fact divide most of U.S. politics in particular into variations of one of two clumps of beliefs, which he identifies as these metaphors. --24.147.86.187 13:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the left/right dichotomy is really an oversimplification of political differences that have many different dimensions. In most countries, "left" and "right" are shorthand terms referring to a package of different views on social, economic, and environmental matters. This package can and does differ from country to country. For example, the "left" in the United States and most Western countries tends to be socially liberal, that is, it tends to favor personal freedoms. However, obviously in the old Communist realm, the "left" was quite authoritarian. Because of this legacy, it can be difficult to refer to politics in former (or remaining) Communist countries in "left/right" terms. I think that our articles Political spectrum and Political compass help to unpack the different qualities subsumed by the labels "right" and "left", but these articles fail to mention the environmental dimension to politics, or how "green" a political position is. At the far green end of the environmental spectrum are people who believe that environmental preservation and improvement should take priority over personal liberties or economic growth. At the opposite end of this spectrum (which lacks a recognized label) are people who believe that environmental concerns are unimportant and that personal liberties and/or economic growth should always take priority. Most people would fall somewhere in between, but perhaps closer to one end or the other. I suspect that the "green" dimension of politics will have growing importance in this century. Marco polo 14:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think of the left/right as being like East/West on the globe, with the extreme left (communists) being right next to the extreme right (fascists), both being against any freedom whatsoever:

  c              c = conservatives
F   M      F = Fascists    M = moderates
C   L      C = Communists  L = Liberals
  S              S = Socialists

StuRat 07:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]