Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 March 14

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.

March 14

Roman Catholic Church/Vatican Papal Conclaves What Ifs

Know that the latest (2013) Roman Catholic Church/Vatican Papal Conclave is over. Still have tons of what if questions regarding all of it. Especially, compared to the ones prior to the 1978 when they 1st allowed outsiders in to the witness everything up to when all of the outsiders have to leave and etc.

Both prior and mist of voting for the new pope.

Can a healthy age eligible cardinal withdraw his name from consideration? Especially, when he chooses not to be the next Papal when asked? Even though he remains in the process another wise.

How were the votes recorded prior to the modern age with some sort of recording device? And are all of those archives still existence with the recorded in the secret archive or no longer in existence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mybodymyself (talk • contribs) 01:38, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Voting procedures are explained at Papal conclave. There is some politicking and discussions among the various cardinals before the voting itself, and it is fantastically unlikely that any cardinal that self-selects himself out of the running would have enough support to then be elected by a majority of the remaining cardinals. --Jayron32 01:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

When a pope is elected, he is asked "Do you accept?". Not all elected persons have accepted. In that case, they go back to the drawing board. So, a cardinal who has already clearly indicated he is unwilling to serve as pope is, as you say, unlikely to get many or any votes. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 01:51, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

That makes sense, and if they chose a Pope who didn't want the job, how effective would he likely be? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think anyone in their right mind would actually want to be the pope, and most popes have accepted reluctantly, but nevertheless accepted, on the basis that the choice is (said to be) divinely inspired and hence God's will. But just as Benedict XVI felt his time was up, some might feel their time should never come at all, and rule themselves out of contention before God ever has a chance to express His will. Poor God. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 04:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

"I don't think anyone in their right mind would actually want to be the pope"

That's one of the most ridiculous things I've heard, and considering that we're discussing religion, that's quite a feat. Why would cardinals, unlike pretty much all other human beings, not want a position of power and respect? --140.180.249.27 (talk) 05:38, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

At least I expressed my opinion as the opinion it is. I acknowledge your opinion (framed though it is as an assertion of fact) is different. What I can tell you for sure, though, is that you'll look long and hard and still won't find any priest, bishop, archbishop or even cardinal who is willing to admit he wants to be pope. In the absence of any such admissions, we're all just shooting the breeze. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 06:40, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I've heard it said that what they really want in a Pope is "Jesus with an MBA". Obviously, big sandals to fill. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

For the same reason Benedict XVI retired. For the same reason they call it the Room of Tears for elected Popes to recover in before going out on the balcony. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that nobody who wants to be Pope is suitable to be Pope, and there is a Catholic saying that "he who enters the Conclave a Pope, leaves a Cardinal". Lots of human being do not want to be in positions of power and celebrity. Becoming Pope is painting a huge target over yourself, basically giving up your previous life (with the expectation that you can never return to it), to try and herd a bunch of cats who will claw your eyes out if they can. Someone who thinks becoming Pope is a great way to get power and respect should be ruled out pretty quickly by the other cardinals. 86.163.215.162 (talk) 07:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for both of your answers to my question. They weren't what I was exactly, but still it helped me.

At the same time here is my latest question regarding all of this.

When does the newly elected and accepted pope pick his new papal name?--Jessica A Bruno (talk) 04:59, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Also from the concave article, he's asked immediately after which name he will choose. Hot Stop (Talk) 05:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Those typos can be [con]vexing.
I'm waiting for the first female Pope, who might choose a name like "Nun of the Above". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Her obscure successor would be "Nun the Less". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Votes could be recorded on wood. They could import papyrus from Egypt. When manuscript parchment was invented, they could record votes on manuscript parchment. When paper was invented in the West, they could use paper.
Sleigh (talk) 10:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

This is the kind of thing that would be worth recording on parchment. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I think we're getting in to a bit of random speculation territory here. If you read the Papal conclave and Papal selection before 1059, it doesn't seem that clear how voting was done in those days and it seemed to vary a fair bit. E.g. the papal conclave was established and then abandoned then used again. BTW the former article says:

Completely secret ballots (at the option of the cardinals present and voting) were sometimes used prior to 1621, but these secret ballots had no oath taken when the vote was actually cast. At some conclaves prior to 1621, the cardinals verbally voted and sometimes stood in groups to facilitate counting the votes cast. The signature of the elector covered by a folded-over part of the ballot paper was added by Gregory XV in 1621, to prevent anyone from casting the deciding vote for himself.

and

In 1562, Pius IV issued a papal bull that introduced regulations relating to the enclosure of the conclave and other procedures. Gregory XV issued two bulls that covered the most minute of details relating to the election; the first, in 1621, concerned electoral processes, while the other, in 1622, fixed the ceremonies to be observed.

And there were the more extreme cases like Papal election, 1241 and Papal election, 1268–71 where you have to wonder what they were doing. Of course in a case like Papal conclave, 1334, some sort of recorded ballot must have been used.

So whether they ever needed papyrus seems a bit unclear. Either way remember if they were following modern day procedure the ballots only needed to last until not long after being counted so longevity of the material probably wasn't that important, more ease of use, clarity of vote etc.

Nil Einne (talk) 19:48, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the latest insight into all of this. Have to all of it is somewhat what I'm looking for.--Jessica A Bruno (talk) 20:38, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Are there any television, stage, or film actors from Botswana that are alive today?

Are there any television, stage, or film actors from Botswana that are alive today? Venustar84 (talk) 01:53, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Here are three to start: Lerato Motshwarakgole is in a South African soap opera, Connie Ferguson was in the same soap opera, Donald Molosi has performed on Broadway. 184.147.116.201 (talk) 02:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

How much has the Fed lent through the discount window since 2007?

Re http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-28/secret-fed-loans-undisclosed-to-congress-gave-banks-13-billion-in-income.html how much has the Federal Reserve lent to banks through the discount window since 2007? The full $7.77 trillion mentioned in that story? 71.208.7.158 (talk) 08:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Between $3,684.3 billion [Dec.] and $3,688 billion [Jan.] was lent through the Discount Window since 2007, depending on which month in the year you begin the calculation. Both figures are to end-February, 2013. Source: [[1]]DOR (HK) (talk) 05:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Cults of personality in "communist" states

This is sort of a follow-up to my previous question about putting deceased heads of state in a glass coffin for eternity. Anyway, throughout the years, many "communist" states or former "communist" states had cults of personality for their leaders (although I'm aware that some "communist" states did not have cults of personality, notably Pol Pot and Kampuchea, and that not all cults of personality are in "communist" states, like Hitler and Nazi Germany, or Saddam Hussein and Iraq). Notable examples would be Mao Zedong, the Kims, Joseph Stalin, Josip Tito, Nicolae Ceaușescu, and Saparmurat "Turkmenbashi" Niyazov (although he and his country were no longer communist after 1991). However, did such people want or request a cult of personality, or were such cults the result of their countries' parties' propaganda, and that they had little to no say as to whether or not they wanted a cult of personality? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

May I mention...

• Jefferson Memorial
• Washington Monument
• Mount Rushmore

...? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

You may, but those are quite irrelevant. There is a difference between honoring historic figures and deifying a leader in life. For example, are the people told that this person is infallible or has other superhuman characteristics ? Perhaps Popes might have qualified, in the bad old days, although the "infallibility" there was supposedly a property of the office, not the person. StuRat (talk) 17:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Papal infallibility was officially adopted as a doctrine in 1870, and only applies to "ex cathedra" pronouncements... AnonMoos (talk) 01:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

You know that, but a lot of Catholics are less well educated than you. Their views are more absolute. HiLo48 (talk) 01:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Turkmenbashi certainly promoted his own...he was the one who called himself Turkmenbashi, and he renamed months and days of the week after his family. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Mao said in a speech on 10 March 1958, "Each group must worship its leader; it cannot but worship its leader" and that this was the "correct cult of personality". (Dikoetter Mao's Great Famine p.19).--Wikimedes (talk) 04:09, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Yep. It's a little-known fact that there was a small group of Americans in the 1850s who worshipped Millard Fillmore. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:16, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Stalin created the cult of Lenin, who was popular, in order to increase his own prestige, then created the cult of Stalin during his own lifetime. The few other Communist leaders who created cults did so during their own lifetimes. With the exceptions of Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il, none of them survived their deaths. TFD (talk) 08:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Is Kim Jong Un more dangerous than his father?

Question from user blocked user based on checkuser.

I ask this because of this http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2013/03/07/is-kim-jong-un-more-dangerous-than-his-father/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harpery (talk • contribs) 13:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC) Nobody can yet know that, and we aren't here to speculate aimlessly. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC) I don't recall that his father broke the truce or talked about a nuclear first-strike on anybody, but talk is cheap, and it remains to be seen whether he's serious. Technically speaking, his father isn't dangerous at all, being as how he's dead. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:11, 14 March 2013 (UTC) Unless you cook and eat them, in which case the son is probably far less dangerous. μηδείς (talk) 17:40, 14 March 2013 (UTC) Actually, Jong-un's current rhetoric is basically identical to that of his father and grandfather, including declaring the truce void and promising to rain "seas of fire" on various things. Generally, the commentary that I've read says that the current situation is "more dangerous" because of what we don't know about how Jong-un and the larger North Korean bureaucracy will act, and that largely because no one had a chance to watch him grow into the role (contrast with his father, who assumed power in his 50s after publicly holding various high-level positions). That is, it's really a statement of "more unpredictable". — Lomn 14:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC) Although, as Mr.98 pointed above, what's really going on in Kim Jong Un's mind is unknown, the progress of the nuclear arsenal is not a complete unknown. Since 2011, as Kim Jong Un took power, the program kept being developed. That last fact makes him slightly more powerful. OsmanRF34 (talk) 14:57, 14 March 2013 (UTC) ...but not necessarily more dangerous. HiLo48 (talk) 21:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC) True, but a lunatic with a bigger gun can kill more people than a lunatic with a smaller gun... --Jayron32 21:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC) ...if we assume he's equally lunatic as his father, then, the present situation is not more dangerous. As long as he obtains from the international community what he wants, he will concentrate his abuse towards his own people. The tricky question is what if he gets long range rockets, is trigger happy, and finds a good idea to break the taboo against using nuclear weapons? OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC) The trump card here might be if China decides that this budding megalomaniac is bad for business, and maybe arranges for him to take a permanent vacation. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC) If China stops supporting him, he can just threaten to nuke them, if they don't continue to support the regime. If China managed to assassinate him, his cronies might well launch a nuke or two. StuRat (talk) 03:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Henry III's reputation

Our article on Gruffydd ap Llywelyn Fawr says his wife Senena paid 600 marks to Henry III for her husband's release. Apparently she had to hand over her two youngest sons, Dafydd and Rhodri, to the king as hostages to ensure that she kept her part of the bargain. Henry did not keep his part however, and kept Gruffydd and his son imprisoned... Did he then release her two youngest sons? Did Henry III keep Senena's 600 marks also? It looks like to me then Henry kept the 600 marks AND Gruffydd plus son Owain. Did Henry III have such a bad reputation as being so ruthless?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:51, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

A quick search for a reference found; "Henry III was very unlike his father. He was very pious, not cruel or ruthless, but rather feckless." From A Brief History of Great Britain, by William E. Burns (p.68). I have come to be rather cautious of general histories as they, by necessity make sweeping statements that sometimes obscure the known facts. Alansplodge (talk) 15:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll keep that in mind about "sweeping statements". So it looks like Henry kept Senena's 600 marks AND kept Gruffydd and son Owain = looks ruthless to me. Did Henry also keep Senena's two younger sons Dafydd and Rhodri in this deal?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• Re Henry releasing the sons, our article on Owain says (unsourced) Henry released Owain after Gruffydd's death in 1244 in the hope's Owain would start a civil war. I've not found a source to confirm that, though Historical Essays By Thomas Frederick Tout, 1907 page 80 does claim the four sons of Gruffydd were free and quarrelling by 1246. On the other hand, Tower: An Epic History of the Tower of London By Nigel Jones, 2012 page 48 says Henry ordered Owain to "be detained more straitly" after Gruffydd's fatal escape attempt in 1244.
• Re the 600 marks, I suspect the 600 figure comes from this website, which apart from the figure, seems a paraphrase of Dictionary of national biography, Volume 23 By Sir Sidney Lee, 1890, page 307. The book version is 300 marks, and it doesn't seem to imply Henry did anything nefarious - the deal was a change of custody for Gruffydd rather than outright freedom.

(Gruffydd was imprisoned by his halfbrother Davydd in 1239. In reaction), "the Bishop of Bangor ... persuaded King Henry to take up the cause of Gruffydd, whose friends promised a heavy tribute. On 12 Aug. 1241 Senena, Gruffydd's wife, made a convention with Henry at Shrewsbury. ... Henry invaded Wales and Davydd ... handed over Gruffydd to Henry's custody.... Gruffydd was now sent to London (about 29 Sept. 1241) under the care of John of Lexington and confined in the Tower, along with his son Owain and some other Welsh captives. He was, however, honourably treated. The government allowed half a mark a day for his support, and his wife Senena was allowed to visit him." It goes on to tell of the escape attempt but doesn't say when Owain was released or anything about Dafydd (the son) and Rhodri.

I hope a better searcher comes up with something more. 184.147.116.201 (talk) 20:19, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. That helps make the picture more clear. Now I understand Davydd ... handed over Gruffydd to Henry's custody and He was, however, honourably treated and ...and his wife Senena was allowed to visit him. Now I see what happened.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

It's hard to look up because there were so many Dafydds, Gruffydds and Llewelyns! Glad that helped. 184.147.116.201 (talk) 16:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Benedict and Francis

If you look at the history that Francis of Assisi founded his order the franciscans as counter concept to the contemplative benedictines founded by Benedict of Nursia. The benedictine way of life is praying and a little bit turned away from the world around. The franciscan style was the poor life and the care for the people who were in need.

Could it be that Francis made the choice of his name that deliberate as a direct answer to Benedict? --Stone (talk) 18:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

It could be anything. But the obvious reference is to Francis_Xavier, one of the founders of the jesuits, to which order the new Francis belongs. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

But the new Pope has apparently explicitly stated that he took his name from Francis of Assisi, because of his love for the poor. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 18:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Interviews with cardinals indicate that Francis of Assisi is the intended reference, and provide some insight into the reasons why. — Lomn 18:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Is the answer ass isi as that? Clarityfiend (talk) 22:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

A cynical reporter on the BBC News last night suggested that it was to ingratiate himself with the Italians, as St Francis is widely venerated in Italy. Seems unlikely to me, but that's what some think. Alansplodge (talk) 00:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

What ever happened to reporters actually reporting on the facts they're paid to discover? Their own personal opinions are worth only whatever the going rate for Wikipedia editors is; it wasn't particularly impressive last time I checked. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 02:54, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Given the hilariously incompetent chatter during the BBC's coverage of the announcement of the new Pope (including the use of a translator for the Pope's prayers who apparently was unfamiliar with the Hail Mary), I think that ship has sailed. 86.161.209.78 (talk) 10:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

That was classic, how idiotic! That's when a competent reporter says "let's listen to the Pope pray the our father...," etc.165.212.189.187 (talk) 14:09, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

CNN took a while to work out who the pope was and even longer to work out his papal name (despite earlier telling us how important it was). They finally found it out from an Italian news source what his papal name was. I had a look at Al Jazeera's twitter account and they seemed to do much better timewise. Oh and another thing about CNN, despite having the smoke thing in the background of the broadcast, it seemed to be 30 seconds or so before they commented on it in the news broadcast. One thing I wonder, it seems Bergoglio was Papabile by many sources, but not very high up. I wonder how many relegated the task of his biography to some junior. Nil Einne (talk) 16:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the Australian commentators got it wrong, too. They proudly announced that the Papacy had once again returned to Italy, as the new Pope was the Archbishop of Genoa. (Wrong) They then corrected themselves to say he was an Argentinian who had spent most of his career in Italy, and so was Italian by adoption. (Wrong) -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

The really scary part is that the likes of CNN and BBC are widely presumed without question to be Reliable Sources. Roger (talk) 19:57, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Silver in Mesopotamia

I would like to know whether silver is traded in Mesopotamia. Is silver sold in "bars"? Also how much would it cost to get enough silver to make a small statue. References please so I can verify the sources. I need to write a story about "Kneeling bull holding a spout." The region doesn't need to be accurate (i.e., it need not take place during the pro-elmic period where the statue is found). --176.25.156.43 (talk) 20:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Presumably you are referring to a period somewhere in the neighborhood of 3100-2900 B.C., which is the estimated date for that statue. Since the statue is made of silver, it's pretty obvious that silver was traded in some way. Apparently it was traded by weight, though, not in the form of coins or bars of a regular shape. In fact there was no formal currency at all at that time, so it's difficult to quantify the cost in any meaningful way. The statue looks like it is hammered from a relatively thin sheet of silver, but the documentation I can see (from the Met web page) doesn't say how much it weighs, so valuing it is pretty difficult in any case. Looie496 (talk) 20:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

How is silver sold in the markets? I presume in sheets? Also, can one "buy" silver from the markets? --176.25.156.43 (talk) 21:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit: I have decided to write about the Proto-Elamite. How do they trade? Do they trade silver (presumably since the statue was made in that period in that civilization). --176.25.156.43 (talk) 21:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Very little is known about the Proto-Elamite people. Proto-Elamite script has not been deciphered yet and writing itself was only beginning to emerge in Sumer and Egypt. Among the most used trading goods of ancient Mesopotamia are barley and silver. The earliest known attestation of silver as a currency dates to the Early Dynastic IIIa period of Sumer (2600-2500 BC) (source). It's quite possible of course that it was used even earlier than that. As for the value of silver, an indication can be gained from the Laws of Eshunna (c. 2000 BC): 1 shekel of silver (c. 8 gram) was worth 120 shekels of refined copper, or 360 shekels of wool or 1 kor (c. 300 liter) of barley. The wages of a harvester for one day were 1/15th of a shekel of silver, those of a winnower 1/30th; to hire a wagon including a driver and oxen for one day cost 1/3 of a shekel of silver. - Lindert (talk) 23:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

What do you think would be easier to write Mesopotamia or Pro-Elamite? --176.249.94.94 (talk) 13:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

"Mesopotamia" is a pretty wide category, but generally we know much more about the various Mesopotamian peoples and civilisations than about the Proto-Elamites, because we can read most of their surviving texts and because they had far more interactions with other civilisations we also know about, who themselves wrote about them. For this reason It would be easier to write (fiction) about the Proto-Elamites, because you can make up far more without contradicting the fewer known facts. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 14:57, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Does any one make a living through poetry?

Excluding cases like Bob Dylan, who is actually a poet, but mainly a singer. OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Almost no one does, and there is no correlation between excellence and the ability to support oneself by writing poetry. For example, a scrivener for Hallmark Greeting Cards may thereby be able to meet the mortgage, but T. S. Eliot was a banker, and Walt Whitman was a nurse. - Nunh-huh 23:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

And who are those who make a living? (I mean from poetry proper, not from novels or essays). OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I think none would be almost as accurate an answer; I wasn't definitive so as not to discomfit those who would cavil that a writer of greeting cards or an itinerant bard qualified as making a living. For further examples, see http://poetry.about.com/od/poetryhistory/a/poetswork.htm - Nunh-huh 23:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Poetry seems to be the main occupation of Benjamin Zephaniah. Most of the other British poets I could find seem to have posts at universities, or are engaged in more lucrative forms of writing, or both. Alansplodge (talk) 23:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

How about John Cooper Clarke, the 'Punk poet'? Admittedly, he makes a living out of writing and performing poetry, but as far as I can see poetry is his 'thing'. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 09:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Robert Frost managed to make a living down the road not taken by most. StuRat (talk)

Was he not a farmer, teacher, and lecturer? - Nunh-huh 09:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

W. H. Davies had a career in vagrancy. Alansplodge (talk) 11:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Isn't vagrancy mostly about standing about not doing much. Richard Avery (talk) 14:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Nice work if you can get it ;-) Alansplodge (talk) 16:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Aye, but let's not make a Big Issue of it, though. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 02:09, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Including Dylan would make no difference, since he does not make a living from writing verse. But song lyricists like Bernie Taupin do. Of course some people do not consider the lyrics of "Candle in the Wind" to be poetry. I can't imagine why. Historically, a lot of money could be made in poetry - for a brief period. Lord Byron made tons of cash from Childe Harold, but alas, those days are gone. Paul B (talk) 15:14, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

From Poet laureate: "A poet laureate (plural: poets laureate) is a poet officially appointed by a government, or conferring institution, who is often expected to compose poems for special events and occasions. ... Today, over a dozen national governments continue the poet laureate tradition." For example, the US one gets $35,000 per year, which technically one could probably live off of alone, but probably the ones who get the job are all people who don't end up in practice using it for subsistence. 67.163.109.173 (talk) 21:54, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

However, the unfortunate Poet Laureate of the United Kingdom receives only GBP 5,760 (USD 8,864), which is certainly not enough to live on, unless you are actually a vagrant. The official salary is 105 Imperial gallons of sherry, but they have been accepting cash instead for a couple of centuries. If we ever DO get a vagrant laureate, he (or she) might prefer the sherry. Alansplodge (talk) 00:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

That's good limerick material :) There once was a vagrant named Jerry/whose poems always made people merry/and with no regret/as poet laureate/he choseopted to get paid in sherry.67.163.109.173 (talk) 01:31, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Good, but doesn't the last line need another syllable ? How about "paid off" instead of "paid" ? Or "he chose compensation in sherry". StuRat (talk) 04:24, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

fixed :)67.163.109.173 (talk) 05:56, 16 March 2013 (UTC)