Humanities desk
< April 15	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 17 >

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.

April 16

Funerals

Can a person unaffiliated with a church request a funeral for a deceased loved one? Or must that person seek church membership first before the church would conduct a funerary service on behalf of the deceased person? Sneazy (talk) 01:09, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need to be a little more specific, given there are officially 15,472 denominations of Christian church, and many of them have independent ministries. You can try calling around, you know. μηδείς (talk) 01:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. It's too embarrassing. I am going to take it as a no. Being non-religious stinks. Well, I suppose a non-religious person could hold free-style ceremony or a cultural-based ceremony. Sneazy (talk) 02:17, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Contact your local funeral home. If you've got the money, they'll accommodate you, I'm sure. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In Canada, a funeral home will normally provide (for a fee, of course) a religious service in almost any denomination you can name, and a non-denominational service as well. The churches/synagogues/mosques I know are used by members first and, in some cases, by others (for a fee) where the priest/minister/rabbi decides that it would be appropriate to do so. Bielle (talk) 02:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Was the deceased a member of a church? That might count for something. Mingmingla (talk) 02:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was not stopped from giving my sister's eulogy in a Catholic church because I was an atheist, and they didn't stop her from being buried there because she was not amember of the congregation. If this question is anything but trolling (which is what this seems) you really need to contact a local church, and not some random person on the internet. μηδείς (talk) 03:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The possibility exists that the OP has had no prior exposure to, or experience with, funeral situations. If so, he's got some useful answers now. Everybody can get buried, religious or not. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Well, I am just asking, because a thought popped into my head of how my maternal grandfather was buried. My mother mentioned that he was cremated, and his ashes were put in a jar or urn or something that stored the burnt remains of a deceased human body. And I believe that my mother kept the container in her childhood house, or at least her relatives kept it. She never mentioned that there was a burial ground. My paternal grandfather was buried, I think, in a rural area, where he had a gravestone. Not sure if he had a funeral. In any case, my ancestors are not Christian, not American, and not Westerners. Since I live in the West, I would expect that my folks would be buried with a Western-style funeral and burial. Since Western society is heavily influenced by Christianity, it sounds reasonable to ask whether or not a non-Christian would be allowed to have a Christian/Western funeral. Sneazy (talk) 03:50, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's really going to depend on what denomination you talk to and even then, it can depend on which representative (priest/rabbi/etc) that you talk to. When my parents were married (granted this was ~60 years ago), every Catholic priest refused to marry them since my dad wasn't Catholic. That is until one finally agreed. Funerals can be the same way. As far as where the ashes go, that depends on the wishes of the deceased or the family. And the laws of the state/country. Many people have their ashes scattered. A friend of mine has her brother's ashes in a cardboard box. Given your lack of detail in this hypothetical question, we can't really give you much of a definite answer. Dismas|^(talk) 04:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, call a funeral home and see what the options are. Plenty of Christians nowadays do cremations, and memorial parks often have a section dedicated to cremation urns for those who don't want them in their home for whatever reason. Also, plenty of non-Christians have "western-style" funerals. Now, let me explain something about cremation: the process vaporizes everything except the bones, which are then finely-ground and placed in an appropriate container. They're not really "ashes" as such. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Bad translation of "ashes". It's "骨灰", which translates literally as "bone ash". Sneazy (talk) 04:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They are the same thing, "骨灰" is the Chinese for what in English are referred to as the "ashes". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK the procedure normally follows something like this, depending on where the death takes place: you choose an undertaker to remove the body from wherever it is (at home or in hospital etc). The undertaker then carries out a basic embalming so that people can view the body and say goodbye to it. The undertaker will also discuss the funeral with the next of kin or whoever is arranging it to see what options are available. In the UK it is completely possible to have a non-religious or humanist funeral and whatever ceremony goes with disposal of the remains. It is also possible to pay in advance for your funeral. It's what my father did when he paid for my mother's funeral and I'd recommend it to anyone. You can get exactly what you want then. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the original poster is looking for information on non-religious funerals, anywhere in the world, there is some more information and links at Humanist officiant. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From reading the article on Humanist officiant, one may draw the conclusion that humanist officiants perform baby namings (similar to christenings), weddings, and funerals, and may infer that they host other ceremonies as well (like coming-of-age ceremony, similar to the bar/bat mitzvah or confirmation ceremony). I suspect that the culture of the so-called "Humanist" ceremony is really Western/Christian, but I suppose ethnic funerals are accomodated, allowing the funeral attendants to wear white instead of black to symbolize the death.

I once had a Mexican-American classmate who got married in Las Vegas with his wife. He was an atheist, though his sort of atheism was closer to nontheism than explicit denial of the gods. He might have had a Vegas wedding officiant. Sneazy (talk) 13:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Humanist funeral officiants, in my experience, carry out a very wide range of ceremonies, and would normally follow the wishes of the family or friends in charge of making the arrangements, rather than seeking to impose any rules or ideology on the ceremony - except that most would balk at including any explicitly religious content such as spoken prayers or hymn singing. The clothing that humanist officiants wear is often designed to be unobtrusive, so that the emphasis is on remembering the deceased rather than thinking about what interesting clothes the officiant is wearing - so, in the UK, a standard suit is normal (for men). Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I organised a humanist funeral in England. Agree with what Gmyrtle says. We had a woman officiant. I can't remember what she wore; nothing in any way distinctive. The family had very free choice as to who would speak, when, what music, everything really. You do not even have to do that; you can organise it all yourself. I know it is hard when you are grieving, but you can start from scratch. The basics is that the funeral parlour will collect the remains and cremate or bury them. You do not have to have any ceremony at all. But you probably do want to have some kind of ceremony, then what? People speaking, music playing, small but significant things that would have meant something to the dead person or mean something to the family. Talking about it, organising it, is cathartic. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The mother of a friend of mine died last year. She was close to 90, had no friends left, and only 2 children and about 5 grandkids. She had arranged for her entire body to be donated to medical research, so there was no funeral or cremation. Under the circumstances, it was decided there was no call even for any sort of memorial service. They just said farewell at the hospital, and that was that. I like the neatness of that approach. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 02:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK at least, once "medical science" has had their way with the body, they will contact the relatives and ask them to collect what remains for disposal. So it's possible that your friend will have an unwelcome phone call in a few months (or maybe years) time. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Time will tell, I guess, but it's been almost 12 months and I've heard nothing like this. The very strong impression I got was that the mother's body was gone, totally gone, forever, as far as her family is concerned. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk]

Tammy - actual practice may depend on the establishment involved, but the Body Donation FAQS at the UK Human Tissue Authority website says "Medical schools will usually arrange for donated bodies to be cremated, unless the family requests the return of the body for a private burial or cremation". Gandalf61 (talk) 14:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting, but does not preclude a phone call from the school to the family. I understand that donation to science only occurs through a will,i.e. a family can't just decide to give the deceased to a medical school if the person dies intestate. It's not the end-all practice some people think it is. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Norwegian Saint Harald

Who is this Norwegian Saint Harald the supposed father of Gunnhildr Sveinsdóttir?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 03:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only major Norwegian Harald I can find who's life overlapped significantly with her is Harald Hardrada, though a) I don't think he was canonized and b) his a bit too young to have been her father. --Jayron32 04:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly Harald Bluetooth, who is credited with bringing Christianity to Denmark? Although she's not listed as his child in our article. See also http://www.bartleby.com/210/11/017.html Rojomoke (talk) 04:41, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He was never canonised either, though. There is only 7 known Norwegian saints, none of them named Harald. Could it be a misspelling of Hallvard? --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Eric was never canonised either, but that doesn't stop people calling him "saint". Gabbe (talk) 09:34, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is true, but that particular appellation has a well-established tradition in Swedish historiography, something which doesn't exist in the case of Harald Bluetooth (or any "Sankt Harald" for that matter). --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article seems to be a translation of an older version of the Swedish article sv:Gunhild (svensk drottning), but the supposition about "Sankt Harald" and quite a lot else in that article was deleted a few months ago - perhaps due to lack of references. Sussexonian (talk) 19:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Contemporary celebrations of Independence Day

...marked by grilling meat outdoors in a public or private space: which countries share this custom besides Israel and the U.S.A.? -- Deborahjay (talk) 09:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course! On Heritage_Day_(South_Africa) we braai loads of meat. Regional_variations_of_barbecue#South_Africa Although generally we don't need much of a reason.196.214.78.114 (talk) 10:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Canada too, since Canada Day is also at the beginning of July. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any summer holiday gettogether in an Anglo country is going to feature outdoor cooking--it's simply too hot to cook a big meal indoors. Goes for labor and memorial days in the US--and has nothing to do with Independence as such. μηδείς (talk) 21:17, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True. Victoria Day in Canada is often considered to be the start of summer, and there is a variously-named holiday in August, so we usually barbecue on those days too. But if it's summer and you have a barbecue, then ideally you barbecue every day! Adam Bishop (talk) 10:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Australia Day is in the southern summer (26 January), and often involves a grilling of meats as well. It's not an independence day, it commemorates the first White settlement/colony. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody could possibly nominate a date for our independence without fear of being contradicted. It occurred not on any particular date but over a period of time, the boundaries of which are equally ill-defined. We are a constitutionally fuzzy nation. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Graduate vs post-graduate

In Australian terms; what is the difference between a graduate and a post-graduate?114.75.62.217 (talk) 10:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A graduate (n.) is a person who has gained a tertiary degree. Post-graduate is most usually used as an adjective to describe the higher studies a graduate is now studying, such as for a Masters or Doctorate. We might say he is undertaking post-graduate research at the ANU School of Inconsequential Studies; but we do not say he is a post-graduate. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 10:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I'd agree with the last sentence - the post-grad societies/ guilds at the various unis are typically called the "Something University Post-graduate Students Association", or SUPSA. I can't say exactly whether I've heard "a post-graduate" or not, but it would just be short for "post-graduate student", and I think it would be fairly normal Australian English. IBE (talk) 12:25, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then you're agreeing with me that it's used only adjectivally. "Post-graduate students" is a perfect example of that, and any expression that omits the noun is simply an abbreviation (like "start up" or "non profit", which are short for "start up company" and "non profit organisation"). -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, I agree that "postgraduate" used as a noun sounds odd, but a Google search for "a postgraduate at" turns up a few results, many of them even quite official university sites. It seems therefore that the use of "postgraduate" as a noun meaning "a postgraduate student" exists, even if it is less common than the usage of "undergraduate" in the same way. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, in British English "postgraduate" (or "postgrad") is often used as a noun to mean a postgraduate student. 111.192.161.147 (talk) 05:32, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In a slightly different context, a "graduate" diploma (or other) course is one which is regarded as being undergraduate level (i.e. at the level of a bachelor's degree) but which is undertaken after completing an undergraduate degree, while a "postgraduate" diploma (or other) course is one which is regarded as being above undergraduate level (i.e. at the level of a master's or higher degree). An exapmle of the former is a graduate diploma in teaching, which is a "top-up" of undergraduate training in teaching for someone who already has a bachelor's degree but not in teaching. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 18:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A post-graduate is a graduate who has been mailed, in a large crate, to a location where he hopes to get a job. Don't forget the air holes ! StuRat (talk) 19:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC) [reply]

DRC olympic/paralympic delegation: asylum

Hi, in september the olympic/paralympic delegation from DRC applied for political asylum in the UK (including for example Dedeline Mibamba Kimbata). Last friday or saturday I watched Al Jazeera and they said their applications (or at least some of them, I am not sure) habe been accepted. But I cannot find any source in the internet (such that I could update the corresponding articles). Any idea? --Chricho ∀ (talk) 13:45, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not finding anything with those keywords [1] on Al Jazeera English. There are recent reports onthe UN's campaign against war rape, or perhaps the piece you saw was on Odette Sefuko? (Who is not an Olympian.) Do you speak Arabic? You could try searching http://www.aljazeera.net as well. 184.147.130.16 (talk) 19:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was Al Jazeera English. --Chricho ∀ (talk) 13:29, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

North Korea

Is it possible for North Korea to destroy South if a war is started? --Yoglti (talk) 14:41, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They certainly have the ability, if unopposed, to do so. The question is how soon the US and other allies would counter-attack, in order to prevent the destruction of SK. The US has thousands of troops there. That's not enough to stop NK, but does serve as a "trip wire", ensuring a rapid US response from other bases and fleets in the region. StuRat (talk) 19:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any sources for that statement? By "unopposed", I suppose you mean opposed only by South Korea, and not literally unopposed by anybody? It's highly unlikely that North Korea, with a $12 billion GDP and weapons that are decades out of date, can defeat a technologically advanced enemy with a trillion-dollar economy. Our article on the Korean People's Army mentions this: "Although the North Korean military once enjoyed a startling advantage against its counterpart in South Korea, its relative isolation and economic plight starting from the 1980s has now tipped the balance of military power into the hands of the better-equipped South Korean military." --140.180.241.109 (talk) 06:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NK spends a much higher portion of their GDP on the military, and pays the soldiers less, so they are able to get more for less. Their military is significantly larger. Add to this the advantage of a surprise attack. And technology is more important over long distances, like if they tried to hit the US. SK, on the other hand, they can hit just fine with basic mortars. Then there's NK's nuclear weapons. At that range they could either put them on missiles or deliver them by plane. StuRat (talk) 07:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, do you have any sources for your statements? Republic of Korea Army is of comparable size to North Korea's army (500K vs. 900K), and every source I've seen suggests that South Korea has an enormous economic and technological advantage. List of countries by military expenditures says that South Korea spends 32 billion dollars per year on its military, which is 2-3 times the entire GDP of North Korea. North Korea is also at least years away from being able to mount a nuclear bomb on a missile: [2] --140.180.254.78 (talk) 15:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in the articles Korean People's Army and Republic of Korea Armed Forces. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One should note that the North really has no intention to "destroy" the South. They have the intention of "unification." I don't want to make it sound like that would be a good thing for the South, but it is not really what I would call "destroy." They want to occupy it. This is a very different stance than their position on Japan or the United States, for example. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

However, if they can't occupy it, destroying it might be a secondary goal. StuRat (talk) 07:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen anything from their rhetoric to suggest that this is at all part of their mindset. Reunification is a major feature in their ideology, and they see it as inevitable. Destroying it would not aid that. --Mr.98 (talk) 11:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some news reports have quoted specialists that say that they have acquired enough material to make only 6 nuclear warheads. So North Korea could detroy 6 major cities in East Asia. If these 6 cities are the 6 largest South Korean cities, it would be a major part of the population, but not everyone. --Lgriot (talk) 09:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is really unknown how much nuclear material they have and how much they use per warhead. There are varying estimates. It is not clear under what circumstances they would use them, though, and it should be noted that none of the weapons they have tested so far can completely destroy a city of any size. (They could do a lot of damage, don't get me wrong. Killing 100,000 people in Seoul would be no picnic, but it would be less than 1% of the city's population.) --Mr.98 (talk) 11:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe nuclear weapons and the long range missile tech is only to scare off distant nations, not the South Koreans as the North has enough artillery power (old but still very effective) to level Seoul within minutes. As stated by others, the North has never wanted to destroy the South but to reunite with them. 70.48.213.165 (talk) 21:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nazi officer angled cap in photos

Often when you see a formal photo of a German (Nazi) officer, their cap is always arranged at a jaunty angle (like here). What was this called (the act of wearing the cap like so)? Is this a part of uniform regulations, or was it just done "for fashion"? Is wearing the cap at an angle only common to the Nazi era, or have other armed forces encouraged or required their offices to wear their caps at an angle too? Thanks everyone!! 59.167.253.199 (talk) 15:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's called swag. In all reality, I haven't been able to find much, I found one person on yahoo answers that said it was to give the appearance that they were "battle hardened" since hats would lose their shape through fighting, others stated it was for comfort due to the design of the hat, unfortunately, I didn't find anything reliable. Ryan Vesey 17:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would also make them look taller. Short people and those seeking to convey a sense of authority (like Popes or Abraham Lincoln), often wear tall hats. I get the feeling this guy was short (unless he is seated), since the pic seems to have been taken from slightly above and I see the bottom of the windowsill, and no ceiling, behind him. StuRat (talk) 19:17, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the British armed forces (used to?) wear their Field service caps like this - see these pictures of Home Guard volunteers. I also seem to remember a scene from Dad's Army in which Mainwaring shouts at someone (Wilson?) for wearing their cap straight on their head - he said it made them look like they were in the Girl Guides or some such. I'm not finding a reference right at the minute, although our Side Cap article [[3]] that the Royal Canadian Air Force wear theirs "on the right side of the head, centred front and back, with the front edge of the cap 2.5 cm (1 in.) above the right eyebrow." - Cucumber Mike (talk) 19:37, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not even restricted to uniform caps, civilians (which of course in those times all wore hats) did it as well at times. Look at the infobox picture of Robert Johnson for example. I think it is a general fashion trend of the period, rather than a special German military thing. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:28, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In Adolf Hitler: My Part in His Downfall, Spike Milligan drew a series of cartoons illustrating the angles at which British soldiers wore their steel helmets to try to look fashionable. On parade, helmets had to be worn straight.[4] The field service cap however, was intended to be worn at an angle; like this. Alansplodge (talk) 12:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I've just remembered Admiral Beatty, whose angled cap was a trade mark in the previous war. The term "rakish angle"[5] usually described it. Alansplodge (talk) 16:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One of the songs in Robin and the Seven Hoods is called "Style", and it includes the statement, "A hat isn't a hat unless it's tilted." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a fashion thing, but it could also have a practical use. If you look at this picture of Tom Mix you'll notice that his giant hat obscures his face in the photo, by throwing a shadow on it. By tilting the hat, you get a better picture, there is more light on the face of the person whose picture you're taking. In the picture of Beatty you can see it as well: the right side of his face is fine, but the left side of his face is in the dark, due to his cap casting its shadow on it.

Another reason, is of course that it allows a person to wear a hat that is a bit too small for their head. V85 (talk) 11:33, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Owls

There are many references to owls in literature, but why does the phrase 'as tight as an owl' mean drunk/toasted/inebriated?114.75.56.255 (talk) 19:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently they do get drunk [6]. The expression is quite old. See Malle Babbe. Paul B (talk) 20:09, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of animals can be affected by gorging on over-ripe fermenting berries, but I don't think it happens too often in nature... AnonMoos (talk) 21:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cassell's dictionary of slang has a definition for "drunk as a boiled owl," which it dates to the late 18th century. It also has "boiled-owlish" dated to the 19th century, meaning "having a washed out complexion and staring eyes due to being overworked" (paraphrasing). Routledge dictionary of modern American slang and unconventional English also has "drunk as a boiled owl," which it dates to the mid-19th century. Someone at this forum thread quotes Partridge as saying there are so "many bizarre expressions for drunkenness (including comparisons to animals) that I wonder if they're deliberately made up to be impenetrable," but I can't figure out for sure what Partridge the person is quoting, unless they mean this one. --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 23:07, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Partridge, no doubt. My edition of his Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English dates "drunk as a boiled owl" to the early 1880s; and after defining it as "extremely drunk", he adds "Why?" Deor (talk) 01:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The London Budget of Wit from 1817 includes this explanation: "As drunk as an owl, as drunk as a sow, as drunk as a beggar, as drunk as the devil, as drunk as a lord. These are the principlal comparisons of drunkenness, and the explanation is as follows:—a man is as drunk as an owl, when he cannot see; he is as drunk as a beggar, when he is very impudent; he is as drunk as the devil, when he is inclined to mischief; and as drunk as a lord, when he is every thing that is bad.". Looie496 (talk) 23:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice find! --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 13:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Old English legal joke:

Defendant: I don't know what happened - I was as drunk as a judge.

Judge: Don't you mean "as drunk as a lord"?

Defendant: Yes my lord!

Boom, boom! Alansplodge (talk) 15:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A good example of the risks of testifying on your own behalf. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Crucifixion in late imperial Rome

Did the late Roman empire, after it became officially Christian, continue to crucify people? 188.220.7.9 (talk) 20:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on Crucifixion says "Constantine the Great, the first Christian emperor, abolished crucifixion in the Roman Empire in 337 out of veneration for Jesus Christ, its most famous victim." - Cucumber Mike (talk) 20:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adolf Berger's Encyclopedic Dictionary of Roman Law also says Constantine abolished it, which makes sense. Unfortunately he doesn't cite any particular law. As far as I can tell the Corpus Iuris Civilis doesn't include any law from Constantine about this. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, apparently Sozomen says so ("He [Constantine] took away by law the crucifixion customary among the Romans, from the usage of the courts"). Adam Bishop (talk) 21:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]