Humanities desk
< October 24	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 26 >

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.

October 25

Swordfighting representations

Fairly often in movies/TV today you see swordfights (say: Pirates of the Caribbean, Kill Bill, Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Firefly, Rome, Last Samurai, Mongol, Batman Begins, Gladiator, Zorro, Shakespeare adaptations, etc.) some of more and some of less attempts at being serious. What I'm wondering is how "accurate" these fights are -- for example, if a "real" swordfighter from some time in the past would laugh at how ridiculous they are, or if any of these fights are accurate representations of how a swordfight might actually look. zafiroblue05 | Talk 00:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of it is that in Europe, anyway, modern swordsmanship didn't really take off until the 15th century, linked in part to better developments in sword technology that made it more than something you'd just try to cleave your opponent with or something you'd use to quickly stab them with from behind your shield. It's certainly possible to say that the use of swords is often exaggerated in heroic European history; most armies did not use them as they are not very efficient weapons compared to pikes and arrows and other things that don't require you to get so close (and work better massed or against massed targets).

Of course, whatever one things, I am sure that anyone who really lived by their sword would find the swordfights in some of those movies fanciful. Pirates of the Caribbean, for example, where it is clear that nobody is really trying to hit anyone else and they are just playing around with them (endlessly). --98.217.8.46 (talk) 02:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert, but there's obviously been some effort to present semi-realistic Roman legionnary fighting in Rome. According to [this press piece], they had actors and extras on a two-week military training course to learn the basics. Whether the result is accurate, is anybody's guess - at least it is entertaining. 84.239.160.166 (talk) 07:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of those I've seen: Pirates of the Caribbean: totally silly (on purpose no doubt); Star Wars: ridiculous, blatantly choreographed; Lord of the Rings: laughable (all drama); Firefly: laughable (ditto drama); Zorro: silly. All fun to watch though, which is the point I reckon. Olympic fencing is not for real I know, but it is about winning instead of entertaining via choreography and drama. Epee, arguably the closest to true duel style, is usually rather slow and boring. Pfly (talk) 08:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an interesting list of movies with swordplay, rated by accuracy. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They don't seem to be rated by accuracy. The stars are "not an indicator of the quality or quantity of the film's fencing." -- BenRG (talk) 18:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Right. Never mind. Well, there SHOULD be such a list. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't attest to its accuracy, but the swordfight scene between Ronald Colman and Douglas Fairbanks in The Prisoner of Zenda (1937 film) is generally considered the absolute best in cinema history. Doubles were extensively used, but doubles who sure knew how to use swords. (The 1952 remake is virtually shot-for-shot, so it doesn't count. And Peter Sellers' 1970's spoof wasn't meant to to be taken seriously.) -- Prince Jack of Zenda

I've always understood that Basil Rathbone was considered the best swordsman among Hollywood actors (see The Adventures of Robin Hood, The Mark of Zorro, et al.). That, of course, doesn't contradict the statement about the swordfight in The Prisoner of Zenda, which I love. (If my miserable speaking voice could be changed to that of anyone I chose, I would choose the voice of Colman.) Deor (talk) 21:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One thing to watch out for is big swooshing strokes that come nowhere near the opponent but end with a flashy clash over their heads. —Tamfang (talk) 17:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is only an "I've heard", so no cite, but I've heard that one big difference between Hollywood fighting whether with swords, knives, bare hands, or anything else is that Hollywood fights tend to go on for a while before you know who wins, whereas in real life the superior fighter tends to win with the first blow. See My Cousin Vinny for an example where this occurs for comic effect -- it doesn't work so well if suspense or action/excitement is what the filmmaker is after. --Anonymous, 18:00 UTC, October 26, 2008.

Indeed, a real sword fight would usually be over in a blink of an eye, often ending with a throw (because being droped hard while in plate mail could be more debilitating than a blow). The reason for this is that an attack is an opening for your opponent. The attack is either successful or, if not, your opponent has a perfect opening for a counter attack. Here is a VERY good source discrediting some of the major myths of medieval combat. --S.dedalus (talk) 20:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

China, India, Japan and Russia

My friend and I just finished the first year of our macroeconomics course in junior college. We were discussing the current American economic crisis. Both of us think that the crisis will cause the USA to lose its dominance of the world and the four Asian powers will surpass the USA and eventually dominate.

1. Is this likely to happen?

2. What factors contribute to the current rise (and possible future dominance) of the four Asian powers?

3. What problems will the Asian powers face in rising to dominate?

4. How would a future dominance of the Asian powers impact the world?

When answering, you can consider each power individually or the four powers as a whole. Also note that we are still in junior college and have only studied macroeconomics for one year, so don't give answers that only university graduates will understand.

Thanks a lot.

It is historically and geographically awkward to describe Russia as an 'Asian power', but anyway: I suggest you check The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers by Paul Kennedy. He looks at the issue of baton-passing between empires specifically from the economic point of view. As to the likelihood of such an event occurring, it is without doubt that U.S. influence will wain as history takes it course. IIRC, Kennedy's argument was that the business of empire-maintenance was just too costly and eventually bankrupts all those who attempt it. If you want an "A" on this assignment (wink) you may wish to also read The Long Emergency by James Kunstler (www.kunstler.com) who will make it all too clear that there will far more demand for oil than there will be a supply of it. Impact, who knows ? Probably a safe bet that English will no longer be the dominant language and that cultural interests will be more Asian (or whoever comes out on top) -oriented in the western world than they are now. --W. B. Wilson (talk) 11:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~China, Russia, and Japan. What's the fourth?~~ (D'oh! Didn't see the title.)Clarityfiend (talk) 21:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarityfiend, No. 4 is India. W.B. Wilson, why is it awkward to describe Russia as an Asian power? I thought Russia is part of north Asia? This is not an assignment, just something my friend and I are interested in knowing more about. The problem with books is not just that they are hard to get, but that they may be far too difficult for junior college students who have only studied macroeconomics for a year. For each question, a one paragraph answer would be enough. But still, thanks for your short answers to questions 1 and 4. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.13.2 (talk) 02:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find it humourous how the same people who exaggerate China's problems and predict their immenant demise are the same people who overlook India's much more serious problems. India has been developing economically at a pretty much constant rate since independence, but very little of this wealth actually makes its way to the lower echelons of society, (sure, India has its positive discrimination programs, but they only apply to a tiny minority), Indian democracy, so applauded in the West, essentially consists of a number of party machines competed for economic controls. India is hopelessly corrupt - in contrast, China cannot point to the facade of democracy, and has to show its people real economic growth and since the Deng Reforms the wages in working class China have been growing at a much quicker rate than their Indian counterparts. China is succeeding in supporting class mobility, and has such has a growing number of success stories to boast about, stories of people working their way out of peasantry or slum housing into real economic success. These stories are simply not replicated in India, where class/caste is still strictly hierarchical and economic success is almost entirely determined by the economic success of one's parents. Furthermore, both India and China are facing a future that includes an uncertain climate, the difference is that the Chinese state has the power to implement the geo-engineering products to save its national climate, in China, farmland is owned by the government, and if the government says that people must move in order to make room for a reservoir that will save thousands of square kilometres of farmland, then those people move, but in India, where most land is owned by freeholding subsistence farmers, huge opposition is supplied to every attempt to impose authority, (indeed, there is much of India that is under a state of insurgency, the same can't really be said of China). Every year the Himalayan meltwaters decrease, one day, they'll grind to a halt and the mighty East Asian rivers will start to dry up. China, if it plans ahead, will be able to weather this change... maybe, but India doesn't have a chance in hell with its current system.

Anyway, my point: its wrong to include India and China in the same narrative. Because while they may seem similar, one is most definitely an ascendent power, and the other one in decline... 218.48.66.96 (talk) 09:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We’re going to need some definitions here, folks. The hypothesis is this:“The crisis will cause the USA to lose its dominance of the world and the four Asian powers will surpass the USA and eventually dominate.” So, we need to define what it is that makes the US dominant today, and what will define the four named economies “eventually dominating” the . . . world? Oh, and we’ll need a time frame for “eventually.” Pretty tall order.

Still, give it a try. Let’s look at shares of world GDP and the change over time. If we extrapolate from the relative change between the 1980s and the past decade, then the combined four nations will surpass the US in seven years. Not any one of them, which rather deflates the argument that the US has fallen from its position, but only the four combined. (Japan is the largest, but there is the awkward bit about its economy being a smaller share of world GDP these days than it was in the 1980s.)

Conclusion? It isn't likely that any one of the four will replace the US as the economy larger than the other four combined (current status: US larger than next four) in our lifetimes. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, since the four are four independent states with their own distinct, and at many times contradictory, goals and foreign policy, the fact that these four nations combined GDP exceeds, in absolute dollars, the GDP of the U.S. doesn't mean a whole lot. The question is mainly what will happen when any one of these (likely China or India, given population) exceeds the U.S. GDP by itself. Trendlines in the short-term make this event appear inevitable, but as economies change, one may see the U.S.'s GDP start to accelerate again. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What makes the USA dominant today? Why is it considered the only superpower today? Mainly economic and political factors. The rise of the Asian powers and fall of the USA will obviously have a few stages.

1. The USA is still number one but is no longer dominant because another Asian power has become a superpower.

2. The USA is still a superpower but no longer number one. An Asian power is number one. Another Asian power is number three and not too far off.

3. The Asian powers are superpowers and together they dominate the world. No other country, not even the USA, comes close to them.

Eventually? I think that is up to you. How long do you think it will take to reach each stage, if at all?

Note that each Asian power has three other Asian powers to contend with, so I doubt a single Asian power will be as dominant as the USA currently is or once was. Think of an industry dominated by four companies. The market leader may have a considerably larger share than the number four company, but the number five company is too far away to break their stranglehold. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.13.2 (talk) 15:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Such Sweet Thunder

I recently added the following to the Romeo and Juliet article:

Duke Ellington's Such Sweet Thunder contains a piece entitled "The Star-Crossed Lovers"[125] in which the pair are represented by blended alto saxophones: critics noted that Juliet's sax dominates the piece, rather than offering an image of equality.[126]

Yet somehow, it doesn't ring true, to me, that both characters would be played by alto sax. Unless their themes were very different musically [are they??], how would the listener even know which sax was Juliet? Is my source correct about this? Does anyone here know this piece, and can comment on its instrumentation?

[Experience tells me I'm likely to get a better answer here than at Entertainment, but I'll cross-post there if anyone thinks it's a better bet.] AndyJones (talk) 09:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, it's not correct. The melody is first played by a tenor sax (Paul Gonsalves, according to the liner notes by Irving Townsend), then the alto sax (Johnny Hodges) takes over. DAVID ŠENEK 13:22, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, excellent answer, thank you. AndyJones (talk) 18:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladeshi Buddhist and Christians vs. politics

Which community is pro-Indian? Which community is anti-Indian? Which community is pro-Pakistan? Which community is anti-Pakistan? Which community is pro-Bangladesh? Which community is anti-Bangladesh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.117.147 (talk) 13:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very few in Bangladesh are "pro-Pakistan" except the Biharis (and their patience has been sorely tried... AnonMoos (talk) 18:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern European human appearances

What are the common natural hair colours and eye colours among the Eastern European girls? When I mean Eastern European, I mean Russian, Ukrainian, Belarus, Moldavian, Romanian, Polish, Bulgarian, Lithuanian, Latvian, Estonian, Slovakian, Hungarian, Serbian, Albanian, Macedonian, Greek, Montenegro, Bosnian and Croatian. I am making a porn site where the girls are naked, involving no sex. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.117.147 (talk) 14:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That last sentence threw me somewhat. What sort of a porn site has no sex? It's like the breadless sandwich (or, indeed, the foodless sandwich). -- JackofOz (talk) 19:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of porn sites. --NorwegianBlue^talk 21:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check out this extraordinary artist's study of European body and face types. --Moni3 (talk) 02:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the future they'll use orgasmatrons, no nudity. Dmcq (talk) 17:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See soft porn. --Tango (talk) 16:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a small gallery of female models from the region I found on Commons. — Kpalion^(talk) 19:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Estonia
Latvia
Russia
Russia
Russia
Poland
Poland
Ukraine
Czech Rep.
Czech Rep.
Hungary
Romania
Croatia
Serbia
Serbia
Albania

Thanks Moni13, but it doesn't help me about the Romanian, Bulgarian and Moldavian thing. How about Belarus people?

Those would generally fit into the Euro-Med type except that they tend to have rather pale skin. Additionally, Bulgarians, being a crossbreed of Slavs and Turks, tend to have protruding cheekbones; kissing a Bulgarian girl on the cheek may be actually painful if you're not careful enough (personal experience). — Kpalion^(talk) 19:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that a gallery of models from different countries answers the question about common natural colourings. That Polish model doesn't look like typical Polish colouring to me. My guess is that models are chosen to be appealing to the terget audience, which probably means Western nations. On the other hand since the questioner is asking about porn sites, maybe he should be interested in what kind of girls people like looking at, not what the girls actually look like. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's just the pose, the hairstyle and the small size of the images, but the girls from Russia (1st & 3rd pictures), Ukraine, Czech Republic(1st picture) and Serbia (2nd picture) look very much alike. If one of them robbed a bank, any of the others might get picked out of a police lineup. Edison (talk) 19:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As it happens, all those photos you mention were taken by the same person on the same day, so if it was all one fashion collection, then it's no surprise they all have similar dresses, hairdresses and makeup (plus all are photographed from the same angle). — Kpalion^(talk) 19:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ex-USSR city name changes

Some cities in the former USSR changed their name back to their pre-revolutionary names. Some didn't. 1. Was the name change voted on in each city ? 2. Why didn't some cities change their names ? 3. Are there cities outside the USSR that changed their name after the dissolution of the Eastern block?217.132.20.78 (talk) 16:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3. Karl-Marx-Stadt comes to mind. Maybe there are others at List of city name changes. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflicted) Saint Petersburg certainly had a public referendum on its name change. (It carried by 54%.) I would imagine other cities did as well. Karl-Marx-Stadt in East Germany changed its name back to Chemnitz. There may have been others. Rmhermen (talk) 16:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a look at List of places named after Lenin and List of places named after Stalin, you will find a few examples, including the Township of Stalin and Mount Stalin in Communist Canada:) I have no idea why they fancied him, but maybe a Canadian can shed some light on this mystery... --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's also woth to note that the name changes have been sometimes very inconsistent. Leningrad may have changed its name back to Sankt-Peterburg, but the surrounding region is still called Leningradskaya oblast'. — Kpalion^(talk) 11:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean "inconsistent". On the previous point, remember that Stalin's USSR played a huge role in defeating Hitler's Germany. Which leader was the more cruel and tyrannical can be debated, but certainly there are a number of countries that are free today and to which Hitler was more of a threat. So it's not surprising that some places would want to leave commemorations of Stalin in place: for example, Stalingrad station on the Paris transit system, so named in 1946. --Anonymous, 18:11 UTC, October 26, 2008.

Inconsistent, of course. Corrected, thanks. — Kpalion^(talk) 19:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stalingrad station is named after the events that happened in the place that was called Stalingrad during WWII, not because of Stalin himself. If the place has been called Volgograd when it happened, it would be Volgograd Station. --Lgriot (talk) 01:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed. This could be called an "eponym twice removed" of Stalin, but certainly not an eponym of Stalin. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but it's still got the name Stalin in it. If Parisians were of a mind that any sort of reference that might be seen as commemorating him was inappropriate, they'd want it changed. --Anonymous, 14:04 UTC, October 28, 2008.

I know what you're saying. For example, if there were a place called Hitlerstadt, and a decisive and important battle occurred there, the Parisians would be unlikely to ever name a station "Hitlerstadt Station". That's not because Hitlerstadt (in this context) is an eponym of Hitler; it refers to a battle, which was in turn named after a city, and it's as far removed from Hitler personally as the Battle of Stalingrad is from Stalin personally. But because of the obvious connotations and sensitivities, any name that incorporates the name of a person who is too objectionable (Hitler being at the top of the list) is not ok as an eponym, no matter how far removed it may be from that person. In fact, if they had been thinking of giving a name to a Paris metro station in the 1950s or 60s, it's unlikely that even "Stalingrad" would have got a look-in. But in 1946, less was known about Stalin, and by the time more became known, the name "Stalingrad Station" had become too familiar. All of this aside, you still can't say that Stalingrad Station was named after Stalin or was in any sense a "commemoration of Stalin". -- JackofOz (talk) 22:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

kichener

was he a British general during the Boer war,or else. please reply to <email address removed> thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.180.144.22 (talk) 17:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed contact details. Ka renjc 18:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

needs a t?--Radh (talk) 18:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Herbert Kitchener, 1st Earl Kitchener... AnonMoos (talk) 18:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1911 Britannica says he became a full general in November 1900. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.11.134 (talk) 18:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, actually, it seems a bit more complicated. The above promotion was in the local army; he became a full general in the British army at the end of the war, June 1902. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.11.134 (talk) 18:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone here tell me anything about this photograph?

Can anyone here tell me anything about this photograph? ----Seans Potato Business 21:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See this link. It appears to be from an uprising of the FALN in Carúpano, Venezuela, which was crushed by president Rómulo Betancourt in 1962. The picture was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for Photography in 1963. --NorwegianBlue^talk 22:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics For Ministry Burnout after Bible College/Seminary

I'm looking for any data/statistics for the number of people who drop out of ministry 5-10 years after leaving Bible College or Seminary. Any data would be helpful. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.161.25.62 (talk) 21:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a quick search on the topic. Most of these articles are geared towards Protestant Christian churches:

Some of these are antadotes; the first link appears to report on an actual study. Hope this helps! - Thanks, Hoshie 10:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's an antadote, Hoshie? -- JackofOz (talk) 22:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If a president resigns, why does he submit his resignation to the Secretary of State?

I was reading the article on Watergate, and it contained an image of Nixon's letter of resignation. It's addressed to the Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger. Why is that? It seems like kind-of a random government official to send it to. Why not send it to the Vice-President, who's next in line of succession, or to the Speaker of the House, or Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, or something? I realize that the Secretary of State is one of the most important people in the cabinet, but I don't see how managing foreign policy would be a qualification for accepting a presidential resignation. Could you just send it to any cabinet member you like? If I was president and needed to resign, could I send my letter of resignation to the Secretary of Agriculture, or the Surgeon General, or the guy in charge of the White House mail-room? Belisarius (talk) 21:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because the executive is appointed by (and so also resigns to) the legislature. -- Fullstop (talk) 21:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But the Secretary of State isn't part of the legislature, it's part of the executive branch. If what you're saying is true, shouldn't he send his resignation to the Speaker of the House, or the Senate Pro Tempore? Belisarius (talk) 21:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Yes, cabinet secretaries are executive too. Well, the dumb answer would be... Nixon just followed the appropriate fed law. -- Fullstop (talk) 21:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And the obvious next question is: why did "they" decide that the Sec of State was the appropriate person to give the resignation to? -- JackofOz (talk) 21:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to ask that very same question :) It seems strange for congress to designate specifically the Secretary of State Belisarius (talk) 21:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whist it may have been of no consequence in this case, it should be pointed out that Henry Kissinger is not a "natural born American citizen" but born in the Frankish part of Bavaria by non-American parentage. He could certainly not have part of the Presidential chain of sucession, even if Gerald Ford had not been qualified for some obsure reason. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to CNN, "The Congressional Act of 1789 placed the official seal of the United States in the custody of the Secretary of State. The seal is affixed to several types of documents, including proclamations of treaties, conventions, and agreements, and on envelopes carrying communications from the president to heads of other governments." So in that sense they would probably be the one who would be asked to officially add the seal to the document of resignation. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 22:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[Archives.gov] states Nixon resigned to Kissinger "keeping with a law passed by Congress in 1792" (presumably the Presidential Succession Act of 1792). That's as close as I could come after almost two hours of digging. There was significant debate about order of succession in the year prior to the passing of 3USC19, and it could well be (but I'm guessing) that 3USC20 reflects the 1791 House's recommendations for 3USC19; had the 1792 act been passed as the House originally recommended it, the Secretary of State would have been #2 (immediately after the VP) in the line of succession (this is what the Presidential Succession Act of 1886 implemented, and the Act of 1947 undid). -- Fullstop (talk) 23:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Practically speaking, it is undesirable for the successor to be the one to determine that the president has resigned the office, since a vice president of excessive ambition, like Aaron Burr , might make a premature determination that some communication constituted a resignation. This way, a third party (beside the president and vice president) can attest to the act of resignation. I recall in a moderate sized city where a a judge was a little nutty, and the mayor announced that the judge had submitted a resignation, via a telegram. The judge denied sending the telegram, but the mayor said the resignation was official and appointed a replacement. These days, the comparable event might be an ambitious VP announcing that the president had resigned orally, or by easily faked email, or by a signed resignation done on the autopen [1]. This was a machine used since the Kennedy administration which actually moved a pen on the paper for "hand singed' letters from the President. Making the Secretary of State the one to determine whether a resignation has been duly submitted makes the resignation a little more believable. Nixon's resignation was handsigned, and not done via the autopen as most letters were done. Earlier presidents had secretaries who could skillfully forge their signatures on routine documents like letters, landgrants or pardons of thousands of former Confederate soldiers.A Secretary of State could be expected to perrsonally communicate with a resigning president to make sure resignation is his actual and unswerving intent, and that a letter is not just a creation of a forger or autopen. Edison (talk) 00:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A strange and purely internal servicing function of the Secretary and Department of State was the recording of documents pertaining to the quadrennial elections of the President and Vice President. The Constitution, Article 2, section 1, stipulated that the votes of the State Electors were to be certified and transmitted "to the seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate." The Twelfth Amendment, adopted in 1804, changed the voting process, but neither stipulation prescribed the transmittal link between the Federal Government and the States. However, an Act of March 1, 1792, amended in January 1845, ascribed a number of contingency monitoring, transmission, and acknowledgment functions to the Secretary of State. Not until 1951 was this role transferred to the Administrator of General Services and in 1984 to the National Archivist.

The Act of 1792 also made the Secretary of State responsible for communicating with State Governments concerning an Electoral College special balloting in the event that the country would be without both a President and Vice President. Later, the Presidential Succession Act of January 19, 1886, provided for automatic succession without such a special election. In addition, the original Act of 1792 prescribed that, if the President or Vice President declined to serve or resigned from office, the only valid evidence certifying to this action was to be a signed, written instrument delivered to the Secretary of State. Such unusual action was first taken by Vice President John C. Calhoun, who resigned on December 28, 1832, to free him to serve in Congress as a Senator from South Carolina. Similar action was taken nearly a century and a half later by Vice President Spiro T. Agnew, on October 10, 1973. The only President to resign the office was Richard M. Nixon, who tendered his resignation on August 9, 1974. Plischke, E. (1999). U.S. Department of State: a reference history. p.134

—eric 01:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The original cabinet had only the departments of War, Treasury, and State, plus the Attorney General (also the Postmaster General). In this relatively simple structure, the state department was given responsibilities in areas other than foreign policy. Also, the Secretary of State has higher precedence than the other cabinet members... AnonMoos (talk)

The reason it's called the Department of State rather than Foreign Affairs is because it's responsible for a few housekeeping functions of government, such as keeping the seal and certifying constitutional amendments. Accepting letters of resignation from presidents is along those lines. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 17:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting! Thanks, everyone! Belisarius (talk) 21:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did Cicero Really Say This?

A nice quote that several ghits attribute to him. I first heard it in the movie The Black Hole. So far all the sources I can find either don't name the source, or refer to the movie as if it is definitive. None of the Cicero Collections I can find include it though, so... is it a real quote?

Rashness is the characteristic of youth, prudence that of mellowed age, and discretion the better part of valor.

Arakunem^Talk 21:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about the rest, but I recognized the discretion/valor part from Henry IV, Part 1, by Shakespeare. Falstaff says it in Act V, Scene IV Belisarius (talk) 22:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I should say, it's entirely possible that Shakespeare borrowed it from Cicero (he was fairly well-read, after all) or maybe it was just a common saying. I don't know, but it's in the play, anyhow. Belisarius (talk) 22:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As Belisarius said, the last part is from Shakespeare; the rest is authentic Cicero, however, from De senectute: "Temeritas est videlicet florentis aetatis, prudentia senescentis." Deor (talk) 22:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]