Humanities desk
< May 7	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 10 >

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 9

ostracism

To be ostracized from Athens was to be compelled to leave the city for ten years (or less if the voters relented). The article answers most of my questions but: what is meant by "the city"? All Athenian territory, or a short distance around the Agora, or something between? —Tamfang 03:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can give two authorities on the 'politics of distance', Tamfang. Philochorus says that the ostracised could not come nearer the city than Geraistos, the promontory of Euboea (Atthis, Fragment 30); and Aristotle writes that they decreed that those who had been ostracised should not live nearer to Athens than Geraistos or Scyllaion under penalty of losing their citizenship permanently. (Athenaion Politeia 22.3) Clio the Muse 07:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A google search of Geraistos shows the Geraistos - Temple of Poseidon to be in modern Platanistos / Hellenikon. This seems to be around 50 km (30 miles) East from Athens. Additionally, the promintory of Euboea is seperated from Athens by water, unless you walk a long way around to an ismuth to the north-north-west of Athens, maybe 150-200 km by foot.-Czmtzc 12:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For more recent exiles, you might be interested in 101st kilometre. --TotoBaggins 14:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the information from Philochorus and the Aristotelian Constitution of the Athenians (22.8 not 22.3) has been the subject of great controversy. It is not sure what the correct reading of the text is. The text as transmitted seems to mean that the ostracized person must not go beyond, i.e. southeast of, those points. This has nothing to do with keeping sufficient distance from Athens, but rather with staying clear of Persian territory. (In the context of 481/0 BC, this concern with collaboration with the Persians would make a lot of sense.) It is only by emending the text that you can get it to say how far from Athens the ostracized must go (though many scholars support such emendation, e.g. T.J. Figueira, Residential Restrictions on the Athenian Ostracized, which should be consulted on this question). Wareh 20:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteers for Franco

The story of the International Brigades and the foreign volunteers for the republic during the Spanish Civil War is well known. What I would like to know is was there volunteers for the other side, men who fought for Franco and the nationalists? By this I mean those who came like the republicans, without state support, rather than the large German and Italian contingents. Captainhardy 08:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The best treatment of this subject (in fact virtually the only treatment of it) is Judith Keene's Fighting for Franco: International Volunteers in Nationalist Spain during the Spanish Civil War. In all, there were about 1200 foreign volunteers for the Nationalists, who came for a variety of motives, not all connected with sympathy for Fascism. Unlike the International Brigades in the Republic, they were not especially welcomed by Franco, who placed far greater reliance on his professional army, rather than half-trained and unpredictable foreign units. There were already some foreigners, of course, in José Millán Astray's Spanish Legion, though these men rarely had ideological convictions of any kind. The independent volunteers included French Fascists, White Russians, Rumanian Iron Guardists, Irish Blueshirts and a handful of English romantics. There was even a lone Australian! Like the International Brigades they invested the conflict with their own particular vision, which rarely, if ever, had anything at all to do with the real war in Spain. The Irish Blueshirts, at some 700 srong, constituting by far the largest of the volunteer units, came with their leader Eoin O'Duffy to fight what they saw as a crusade for Catholicism and civilization against atheism and Red Terror. Franco's distrust of the effectivness of the foreigners was fully demonstrated when the Irish Brigade collapsed under enemy bombardment. Thereafter, most of them voted to go home, the remaining handful taking up service with the Legion. As I have said, not all of the foreign fighters necessarily had any sympathy with Fascism. This included Peter Kemp, a young Englishman, recently down from Trinity College, Cambridge, who served with the Carlists, an old royalist rebel faction in Spain. Kemp went on to fight in the British Army in the Second World War. The hardest among the pro-Fascist volunteers were to be found in the French Joan of Arc Brigade, many of whom had emerged from Action Francaise. The White Russians, in contrast, were there to fight far older battles. There was also a handful of female volunteers, including the American publicist, Jane Anderson, later to work as a propagandist in wartime Berlin. Clio the Muse 09:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence of Arabia's opinions on Homer

I have a copy of T.E. Shaw's (aka Lawrence of Arabia) translation of Homer's The Odyssey (Wordsworth classics). In the introduction he makes the following comment: "Crafty, exquisite, homogeneous - whatever great art may be, these are not its attributes. In this tale every big situation is burked and the writing is soft." He adds at the end of the paragraph, "The author misses his every chance of greatness, as must all his faithful translators." Is this the quirky opinion of a slightly eccentric scholar, or is there any wide agreement on this? The Mad Echidna 13:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever read Seven Pillars of Wisdom, Echidna? I wonder if his comments on Homer reveals, in a disguised form, rather more about Lawrence himself than he would ever care to allow openly, in much the same fashion as Tolstoy does in his criticism of Shakespeare? The one thing Lawrence never misses is his 'every chance of greatness', to the extent that his account of the Arab Revolt is as much personal epic (perhaps more so?) than a work of history. Clio the Muse 14:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, but I have seen the film by David Lean, and read the Wikipedia article on T.E. Lawrence and the Seven Pillars of Wisdom, and what you say is entirely consistent with that. Thanks a lot for the observation, because I was otherwise tending towards attributing the opinion to eccentricity, as I mentioned. Whilst this may not be wrong, it seems to be a simplistic theory. I haven't read either the Seven Pillars, or the Odyssey, but I intend to read both, and I think I'll be looking at the Seven Pillars in light of what you wrote. The Mad Echidna 00:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I have come across Tolstoy's criticism of Shakespeare, and found it exaggerated and implausible. However, I would be very interested to know what you mean by its revealing something about Tolstoy. Hoping to hear on this, regards, The Mad Echidna 00:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The opinion on Homer is cranky, in that Homer was sacrosanct, but the thought behind it was common enough. In the late 19th century, an educated Englishman would know Matthew Arnold and John Ruskin and their thoughts on heroism (which are rather complex). The very things that we praise about Homer (it is not a black and white world, the heroes are not all heroic and the opposition is also great, human gestures abound, victory comes from wile rather than camaraderie and national strength or even character) are things that could be "flaws" in Homer. With emergent nationalism, there was an accompanying literary view that the duty of literature was to promulgate not merely sweetness and light, but heroism and "national character."

From Aristotle to Plutarch to Sidney (twice in a day with Sidney now!), one of the justifications for literature had been that it provided not what was, but what must be or should be, that it taught as well as entertained. Thus, any writer would be obliged to show admirable characters, and admirable "character" was also in the heroic expression of valor, display of self-sacrifice, and high-minded action.

So, if you take the notions of the sublime that some of the late 19th c. writers had worked out, combined that with the misunderstood statism one could incorrectly gather from Arnold and others, added in what one's classical education demanded about the ennobling function of art, and then draughted in the idea of national character, you could end up, like Lawrence, thinking that Homer is paltry. Utgard Loki 14:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still, let's not exaggerate this: I think there was broad agreement among virtually all critical parties, certainly including 19th-century devotees of the sublime, on Homer's greatness. Keats, moved "like some watcher of the skies / When a new planet swims into his ken," is agreeing with most readers before and after him. So I'd say Lawrence is just delighting in iconoclastic strong opinions. By the way, we have an article on Arnold's On Translating Homer. Wareh 20:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, absolutely. I did not mean to suggest that Lawrence is common in poking Homer, only that his own views can be seen as emerging from a tradition. In fact, we really should have an article on Reputation of Homer, as Homer's fortunes tell us volumes about each age. Then again, I'm a reception aestheticist. <shrug very few of us left, I know> Homer was the closest thing to a sacred author you could safely punch. Anti-Shakespeare sentiment would, after all, start again as soon as Shakespeare was safely hallowed. Homer's a guy you can sneer at and know that the fellow won't really be hurt. Utgard Loki 14:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Loki for the analysis. I'm glad I finally got around to asking this question. I had my copy of the Odyssey on my computer desk for many months to remind myself, before finally just doing it. The Mad Echidna 00:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George Orwell

Is their a consistent theme in the writing of George Orwell? 86.132.6.240 14:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After World War II, Orwell consistently addresses the (mis)use of language in politics and its corrosive effects. Examples of this include Newspeak in Nineteen Eighty-Four and his essays Politics and the English Language and The Prevention of Literature. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 15:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That the power of the state is untrustworthygrows power for its own sake, corrupting any and every ideal and goal? Utgard Loki 16:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good question which reminds me of an essay I wrote in sixth form at school, to which I gave the rather grand title The Development of Despair in the Work of George Orwell. Yes, there is indeed a consistent theme, which it is possible to pick up as early as Burmese Days, his first novel, through his essays and reportage, all the way to Nineteen Eighty-Four. The theme is one of cultural and political pessimism, of the little man drowning, of a world corrupted by the abuse and misuse of language, a world set on the destruction of individuality and all sense of the self. Orwell manages to combine a belief in socialism-which barely lightens his deep sense of disquiet-with a kind of nostalgia for a world lost in the Great War-From the whole decade before 1914 there seems to breath forth a smell of the more vulgar, un-grown-up kind of luxury, a smell of brilliantine and crème-de-menthe and soft-centred chocolates-an atmosphere, as it were, of eating everlasting strawberry ices on the green lawns to the tune of the Eton Boating Song. In many ways his perspective is really that of an old-fashioned 'muscular Christian', standing on the island of simple decency, threatened by the rising waters of ideological intolerance of all kinds. In one of his most brilliant essays, that on Charles Dickens, published in 1939, he concludes by describing the face of the author which emerges from his writings-It is the face of a man who is always fighting against something, but who fights in the open and is not frightened, the face of a man who is generously angry-in other words of a nineteenth-century liberal, a free intelligence, a type hated with equal hatred by all the smelly little orthodoxies which are now contending for our souls.

His experience of the 'smelly little orthodoxies' is fully described in Homage to Catalonia, his account of his own experiences during the Spanish Civil War. It was from this point that he began to perceive the corruption of language-and the deliberate rewriting of history-as a serious problem for the modern age. In his novels the type depicted most consistently is the 'little man', always from the same lower-middle class background (Orwell's own), who is being submerged by an impersonal modern world. As novels most of them are actually not of a particularly high order, especially Keep the Aspidistra Flying, with the tiresome and self-pitying Gordon Comstock, a character later to emerge as George Bowling and, later still, as Winston Smith, his final hero. But the novel, it seems to me, that reveals most about Eric Blair the man, as opposed to George Orwell the author, is Coming Up For Air, by far his best since Burmese Days, and the one that anticipates Nineteen Eighty-Four. It is in a sense Orwell's David Copperfield, combining his political ideas, his personal experiences, his sense of the 'powerlessness' of the individual, his nostalgia and his fears about the future-I'll tell you what my stay in Lower Binfield had taught me, and it is this. It's all going to happen. All the things you've got at the back of your mind, the things you're terrified of, the things that you tell yourself are just a nightmare or only happen in foreign countries. The bombs, the food-queues, the rubber truncheons, the barbed wire, the coloured shirts, the slogans, the enormous faces, the machine-guns squirting out of bedroom windows. I know it's all going to happen. I know it-at any rate I knew it then. There's no escape. Fight against it if you like, or look the other way and pretend not to notice, or grab your spanner and rush out to do a bit of face-smashing along with the others. But there's no way out. It's just something that's got to happen. Clio the Muse 16:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Our Society's Swear Words

I have a kind of odd question here... First of all I am a Christian and like to tell curious people on what I believe in. One of the things I tell them is that swearing is not a good thing. Basically because I tell them that it says not to use bad language in the Bible. Now these people tell me that God never said what the exact swear words where in the Bible. Anyway basically my question is honestly how did all of our societies swear words become swear words? How and why are they taken as swear words? I would like to answer these peoples question. Thanks! 15:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

AFAIK, the only thing the Bible prohibits is "taking the Lord's name in vain". According to this line, saying "Oh my God" is wrong, but using every word and euphemism known to man for intercourse, genitalia, defecation (and the other terms usually labelled as "swear words") is fine. Interestingly, some of the "swear words" society finds more acceptable, like "blimey" (God blind me) etc may be therefore more objectionable to religious people than the "rudest" words that are usually not tolerated. --Dweller 16:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Profanity and Minced oath. --Dweller 16:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certain words, in English usually blunt, slang words referring to sexual organs or bodily functions, are considered foul or taboo. These words are in effect set aside by the culture as "dirty", not to be used in formal or polite settings. These words are often used to insult, to express strong emotions, or just to express disregard for social niceties. You might take a look at our article Profanity. Incidentally, I am not a Bible scholar, but I thought that the only prohibition in the Bible was against using the name of God in vain (for example, for swearing). I am not aware of prohibitions against "swear words" that do not involve the names of God or Jesus. Do you know of a Biblical verse that prohibits these? Marco polo 16:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might also consider investigating where in the Bible it does (or does not) say "not to use bad language". Anyway, I would point you towards profanity (which is heavily vulgar) or the notions of taboo (referenced in profanity as a common origin for profanities) to find possible answers to your question. Consider also that the notions of what is profane, or what is excessively profane, are not constant throughout a society but tend to be personal and varied. — Lomn 16:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From a religious, Christian point of view, there are two commands. First, there are the commands that are specific. Jesus said that we must never curse anyone. Therefore, from "damn you" to "I hope you break your leg" is forbidden by Jesus Christ. If "damn it" fails to have the power of an actual curse -- if it does not mean "go to Hell and suffer torment" -- then it is arguably permissible. Additionally, taking the Lord's name in vain is forbidden. This goes to the decalogue, obviously. Therefore, "God damn" would be the most explicitly forbidden phrase for an observant Christian.

The other injunctions are far more vague. They say (pace folks) that Christians are not supposed to appear vulgar and disreputable. These admonitions are found in Paul's letters, when the Christian church was new and struggling. Paul says that Christians cannot, in short, give the outsiders anything with which to tar them. Now, that generally means, "Don't talk like a criminal" or "Don't talk like a person others find offensive." This is quite flexible. For most social registers, "fuck" is offensive, but with teenage friends it might be a normal conjunction. The question is whether or not you believe the language is making you appear vulgar and shabby. Very few person to person contacts in the US would consider a "damn it" or "bullshit" to be such. Additionally, some profanity has a wildly different register in different parts of the English speaking world. (E.g. "cunt" is probably the most offensive term in America but, while awful, is used more frequently in the UK. "Bloody" infamously means nothing to an American but can cause fainting and premature graying of ladies in England.)

In general, most societies divide their profanity into two categories: cursing and sexuality. In Arabic, calling you a sandal is a curse. It is a straight pejoration. A reference to sexual organs or sexual acts can be taboo, but that will differ greatly in ages and locations. Generally, though, it's down to "private acts/parts" being mentioned, deity invocations, and comparing a person to a despised animal/object/act. Utgard Loki 16:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to echo what all of the other responders have said, the Bible's chief interdict is that against taking the Lord's name in vain. Most of our contemporary swear words are of Germanic and Anglo-Saxon origin-including the most notorious of all-and are therefore permitted by default. It is, by Biblical standards, less offensive to say 'fuck' than it is to say 'gadzooks', which is thought to mean 'God's hooks', or the nails used in the crucifixion! A fair bit of Medieval literature is full of inventive and colourful profanities, including Chaucer's Canterbury Tales, where you will find such delights as 'God's Bones', God's Teeth' and the like. But my very favourite are the words of the deeply religious Oliver Cromwell to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in 1650-I beseech you, in the bowels' of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken. Now, who can better that? Clio the Muse 16:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the bible enjoin one not to take the name of the LORD in vain, where the LORD is the the traditional way to translate the tetragrammaton? So you're only directly violating the commandment if you use the word יהוה, which no-one knows how to pronounce anyway. 131.111.8.104 19:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If one views the Bible as the literal word of God and regards every prohibition in the Old and New Testaments as being equally valid, it appears that using sexual or excretory swear words is much less of a sin than wearing mixed-fibre clothing (Leviticus 19:19). Shakespeare was censored for using "gadzooks", but "the bawdy hand of the dial is upon the prick of noon" was just fine. --Charlene 23:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Language changes over time. There's no way the writers of the Hebrew Bible were going to be able to anticipate the importance of specific phrases in English. So any prohibition could not be at the actual level of language, but at the level of usage. And as has been pointed out, if you are really going to take the laws of the Bible seriously you've got a lot more considerations to worry about than just this — there are about a million of them, many of them appearing incredibly arbitrary today. --24.147.86.187 00:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Jewish perspective might be worthwhile here. In Judaism, the Third Commandment prohibits making false or trivial oaths. For example, one should not swear to God that the sun is hot, since everyone knows it's hot, so that's a trivialization of God's name [1]. However, there are broader rules regarding taking the misuse of the name of God. The tetragrammaton is super-holy; it can never be erased or pronounced. When read, the word Adonai, meaning "my Lords," is said in place of the tetragrammaton. But Adonai is also a name of God, so often Jews will use Hashem ("the name") in place of Adonai or other names of God in everyday conversation. Another convention is to use Elokim in everyday conversaion in place of the divine name Elohim. Some Jews will even extend this to English, writing G-d rather than God, although this is not universal. Concern over the trivialization of divine names is why Jews don't "over-pray" -- for instance, you're not supposed to say the blessing over the meal twice or the wrong blessing. See names of God in Judaism.

It's kind of strange to me how some people assume the Third Commandment (what Catholics would call the Second Commandment) applies specifically and only to the profanity "goddamit." The Bible, of course, predates the English language by hundreds of years, and I don't see how it could outlaw a specific English phrase. From my perspective, if it's wrong to say "God damn," it's wrong to use the English word God in any non-holy situation. -- Mwalcoff 01:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just clarification: for my part, I would say that you are correct, any trivial use of "God" is forbidden in Christianity, just as in Judaism, and I was only saying that "damn you/it/him/her" is also prohibited, so combining the two is the double whammy of breaking two injunctions -- one from the Old and one from the New Testaments. Utgard Loki 14:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lite and Londonpaper????

What is the point of exsitance of both London Lite and Londonpaper,when both of them always publish same articles and even the same pictures.I can understand why free daily newspapers like Metro and City AM exist,but whats the point of having both Lite and Londonpaper,when everybody knows its the excatly the same thing??

Thank you very much for your answers¬¬¬¬

They're competitive rivals. They both exist because they wish to make money. I'm sure each one would be delighted if the other closed up and stopped publishing. --Dweller 16:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Evening Standard and Metro are both published by the same company, Associated Newspapers. As the E'nin Stanit held a virtual monopoly, Murdoch decided that London was the easiest market to try and break, with thelondonpaper.[2] Meanwhile, circulation of the Standard was falling while that of the free Metro rose, and Associated Newspapers were worried about the effect that thelondonpaper would have on both the Standard and Metro (being essentially a merger of the two papers), so they themselves launched a virtually identical rival, London Lite; the idea being that customers who would normally be tempted to switch to thelondonpaper would instead go for the London Lite, which is basically a cut down Standard, while those who liked the Standard but were turned off by the price would begin reading the free version. Of course, as News International and Associated Newspapers are two of the meanest news companies in the world, things soon escalated to the point that thousands of copies of both papers are being dumped in the Thames just to try to boost circulation figures so that advertisers will be encouraged to advertise with one paper over the other. [3] Who says business isn't petty!? Laïka 19:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much.Laika explaind excatly what I wanted to know.Since I see you know a lot about this subject,do you maybe know why is it that Londonpapers and Lite are being given to people in front of Tube stations all over Zones 1,2 and 3,sometimes even being dumped in the river,like you said, while Metro is never ever being given out.It seems like they just leave it on the trains in the morning and thats it??

Thank you once again

They have large boxes at big railway stations and in some trains where commuters can pick up the Metro from. As the Metro has no competition in most areas (London is the only place with other sets of freesheets), they don't feel a need a to pressure customers into taking it. Also, railway users are a captive market; once on a train, there is usually no way to get another newspaper (that's why Metros are left on train seats). London Lite and thelondonpaper on the other hand are bitter rivals, and their customers have far more choice available to them (newsstands are tenapenny in London), and so they practically try to force the papers into your hands (just try standing outside Euston or Paddington at rush hour; you'll probably leave with at least half a dozen copies of each!); advertisers want to get maximum readership, and so if it looks like 1 million people read London Lite or thelondonpaper, advertisers are going to be willing to pay more far to advertise in them, even if only 25,000 customers only read it cover to cover. Laïka 10:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iraqi Provincial Governments

Sir or Ma'am,

I'm looking for information on Iraqi Provincial Governments. Wikipedia gives great information on how the Central Government is organized and how leaders are selected/chosen. I am trying to get the same level of detail for the provinces within Iraq. The 18 Provinces are similar to our 50 States. If the information is contained on the site, I can't find it and will apologize in advance for troubling someone. Any help you can provide is greatly appreciated.

R/ Kevin Faughnder —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kevin.faughnder (talk • contribs) 20:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Inasmuch as this information is available on Wikipedia, it is to be found at Governorates of Iraq and the pages linked to there. This should certainly be linked properly from the main politics of Iraq article, but is currently only linked from a sidebar. Based on a quick skim, these articles don't seem to say much about local politics and governance, but is seems to be what we've got. Some of the articles on the Arabic wiki ([4]) are longer, so there might be useful information there. Algebraist 21:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

March on Rome

What were the factors leading to the victory of Mussolini in 1922? Captainhardy 20:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Benito Mussolini, March on Rome, Fascist National Party etc etc. And whatever book goes with the course this is homework for. Algebraist 21:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The pages that Algebraist has linked are certainly an important beginning, and do much to explain the immediate takeover of power by Mussolini, though I'm not quite sure they fully explain the long-term crisis, both of the Italian state and Italian liberalism, which allowed Fascism to ascend in the first place. Even before Italy's entry into the First World War in 1915 the country had undergone a prolonged period of political instability. If anything, the war had only made matters worse, as Italy emerged more divided than ever, and with a mentality and outlook that would seem to place the country amongst the defeated, rather than the victors. Italian democracy itself, moreover, was weak and unrepresentative, belonging more, it has rightly been observed, to the political system evident in eighteenth century England, with rule by clique and patronage. After 1919 the nation was increasingly polarised between a militant left and an equally militant right, angry and frustrated by the failure of the Allies to honour the terms of the Treaty of London. The underlying tensions could not be contained by appeals to constitutional authority. The king, Victor Emanuel III, was the kind of man who drifted with rather than controlled events. Not fully recognised by the Vatican, and thus denied the automatic support of Italian Catholics, he was faced with a serious challenge from the Italian Socialist Party, which in 1919 adopted a revolutionary political platform on the Russian model. It had been the style of veteran political operators, Giovanni Giolitti above all, to envelop potential opponents in old patronage system. The new political realities made the old balancing act less and less possible.

Although Mussolini's Fascists did poorly in the elections of November 1919, the bulk of the seats went to the Catholic Popolari and the Socialists, two parties that stood in fundamental opposition to traditional Italian liberalism. Francesco Nitti managed to hold on to power, but only with the support of the Popolari, while the country seemed to move ever closer to a violent Socialist revolution. Fearful that the state would no longer be able to protect them, many industrailist and landowners turned incerasingly towards Fascism in the winter of 1920-1, supporting and funding the violent and counter-revolutionary squadristi. Throughout the course of 1921 Italy was in a state of virtual civil war, with over one hundred people being killed in political battles in one five week period alone. Government succeeded government, until finally Luigi Facta took control in February 1922, in the last and most exhausted phase of liberalism. Mussolini's threat to sieze power in the autumn of that year was in essence a great political bluff. Although the squadristi had established a dominant political position in northern Italy, especially in the Po Valley, they had not the strength, nor the arms, to take on the Italian Army. Facta was determined to make stand by declaring, with the support of the king, a state of emergency; but Victor Emanuel, in breach of all constitutional convention, refused to sign the proclamation. This, arguably, was the most decisive point in Italy's modern political history. Facta had no alternative but to resign; the king, fearing civil war, invited Mussolini to form a government. It was not the comic-opera March on Rome, which proceeded after the event, that decided the fate of the country, but off-stage political maneuvering, reminiscent of much of the horse-trading that had been such a feature of Italian politics since Reunification . Thus was born the 'Fascist Revolution.' Clio the Muse 23:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Science Fiction Story

hidden comment in script I'm looking for the name and author of a story I remember quite well. I think it was probably by one of the 'big guys'. The world it is set in is one where people don't learn by going to school, instead they go through some process to 'put' information and skills in their heads. Everyone is taught to read about the age of 7, then they all receive some specific skills and knowledge for a specific occupation matching their brain and the economic need. Our hero tries to influence the occupation that will be chosen for him by learning about it before hand, although it doesn't work like that. He is told that his mind is not suitable to learn anything by the method usually used, and is placed in an institute called something like 'The Institute for the Feeble-minded'. While there, he realises that it would make more sense for a company to hire people and teach them to learn, so they can upgrade their knowledge as new things are learnt and developed, rather than hiring people with specific knowledge who have to be replaced frequently as new models of machines are released. He tries to tell some people, but they laugh at the idea. Then it turns out that the current system is deliberately inefficient, to keep the colonies dependent on the Earth government (I think). Also, that our hero has actually been chosen to help handle this system, since he seems to be a free-thinker. The Institute was just a cover story while they let him work things out for himself.

Hope someone remembers this one, since I'd like to reread it! Thanks. Skittle 22:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BAM! I was so excited to find your answer. I simply did a Yahoo! search for Institute for the Feeble-minded short story and this was the top hit: Profession. It is by a big one: Asimov. Enjoy. - Zepheus <ゼィフィアス> 00:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! Thanks. If I'd had any confidence I'd remembered that name right, I'd have searched it. A lesson there :-) Thanks again. w00t! Skittle 00:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEFITZAT HADERECH

RE:

'Shmuel Yosef Agnon, an Israeli writer who won the 1966 Nobel Prize for literature incorporates the ability in some of his work. In an Agnon story based on one of the above-mentioned Hasidic folktales, a righteous rabbi is given the gift of kfitzat haderech and uses it to "jump" into the treasuries of the Habsburg Empire, take sacks full of newly-minted gold coins, and jump back to his shtetl, unnoticed by anybody. He uses the money to help poor or persecuted Jews, and the story implies that the power would be taken away should he take any of the gold to himself.

Later, when the Emperor plans to make decrees harmful to the Jews, the Rabbi uses his power of kfitzat haderech" in order to jump into the audience chamber and beat the Emperor with his stick - being visible (and tangible) to the Emperor himself but invisible to his councillors and guards.'

-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kefitzat_Haderech

Q: I've run the goog/wiki engines and cannot find the story referenced of Agnon's Kefitzat Haderech, any ideas on where possibly story(ies) are posted on Net? Thanks Much.

216.100.216.5 23:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)JACOB V[reply]

You may want to check this section and those below it for his works, and read up on those. - AMP'd 23:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further, The concept of kefitzat haderech stems from rabbinic literature regarding the Israelite spies in the Land of Canaan. I'm hazy about whether specifically it was the the twelve spies or the two spies Joshua sent. --Dweller 08:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But can we be sure that Sh"Y Agnon read Frank Herbert? ;-) -- Deborahjay 03:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]