Humanities desk
< August 19	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 21 >

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.

August 20

Non-Jews that live in Jewish communities must pick up grain?

I recently watched this episode on National Geographic about the Bible's mysteries. There was one verse that said that Jews were extremely strict about impurities, so even the non-Jews living within Jewish communities had to clean up the grain, which somehow prevented the Jews from becoming ill while the Egyptians - who didn't have such practice - got poisoned by the mold. Where can I find biblical textual back-up or Jewish religious tradition and culture for this claim? By the way, are there any Christian groups that are very fastidious about cleaning up grain, or at least ask non-Christian members to obey Christian religious laws, observances, practices, rituals, and the like simply because the non-Christian members are living within predominately Christian communities? 65.24.105.132 (talk) 01:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like gleaning and is ~~post-exile~~ post-Exodus and not specifically a cleanliness practice. Rmhermen (talk) 02:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? Is there a pre-exile cleaning up grain? 65.24.105.132 (talk) 03:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. That should say post-Exodus which is pre-exile but after Egypt. 75.41.109.190 (talk) 13:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like ~~utter tosh~~ mere speculation. There's nothing textual in the Bible to support this. Are you sure you're reporting it right? It sounds very confused. --Dweller (talk) 20:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like an attempt at a "rational" explanation of how Egyptians were affected by one of the plagues (the Boils?) but the Israelites were not. It doesn't appear to have anything to do with gleaning, since the OP seems to be talking about cleaning grain before using it, which supposedly the Egyptians were more lax about. As a result they caught a disease that the Israelites didn't get. It assumes, of course, that these supposed ritual practices pre-dated the Torah. Paul B (talk) 21:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As for the second part of the question, the standard Christian view was that the "ritual law" was abolished by Jesus. See Christian views on the Old Covenant. There are some adventist sects that deny this, often linked to British Israelism. G. G. Rupert and Herbert W. Armstrong both believed that laws pertaining to "clean" and "unclean" animals still applied. Paul B (talk) 12:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure there is a name for this, which escapes me at the moment, but it is also a typical Christian view (probably going back to Aquinas, and presumably earlier) that Jesus did not abolish things like the Ten Commandments or anything in the OT that is "natural law" - hence the idea that OT laws against homosexuality (for example) still apply. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:13, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever Jesus thought about OT laws, there is no OT law about cleaning up grain. The original source the OP saw may have been referring to gleaning (as Paul Barlow said, above), a law which Jesus probably heartily approved of, or cleaning for Passover. I'm not aware of any Christian sects observing the Jewish laws of preparing for Passover, which is quite a boon for Christianity, given quite how insanely hard work it is. The latter kind of makes sense, as it is connected with the Exodus from Egypt, and they even celebrated the first Passover there, but until they left Egypt and got to Mount Sinai, they had no laws of removing leaven on Passover. --Dweller (talk) 13:25, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

British princes of Hanover

Why did Prince Ernest Augustus of Hanover (1914–1987) have to be granted his British title in 1914 by George V when his father Ernest Augustus, Duke of Brunswick did not? British prince seems to indicate that prior to 1917, male line great grandchildren were recognized as prince with the style of Highness while descendants after that was not specified. Logically Prince Ernest Augustus's father, aunts and uncles' status as British princes/princesses would have been questioned too and needing a grant (if it is even necessary) since they were great great grandchildren of George III. If the title of Prince was meant to go pertually in the legitimate male line then George V wouldn't have to have done anything in 1914 because Ernest Augustus along with all male line Hanoverian born before 1917 would have been born as Prince/Princess of Great Britian automatically. The articles of Ernest Augustus' siblings born before 1919 Prince George William of Hanover (1915–2006) and Frederica of Hanover claimed they were born British prince and princess, is this true even though they weren't granted titles by George V as their elder brother was in 1914. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 04:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I may be wrong here... but I don't think the title prince passed down in perpetuity. My understanding of the tradition back then was that the title Prince/Princess was granted to children, grandchildren (styled His/her Royal Highness) and great-grandchildren (styled just His/Her Highness) of a Monarch... and then it ended. Ernest Augustus, Duke of Brunswick was the great-grandson of George III, and so was automatically a Prince of Great Britain and Ireland (as well as a Prince of Hanover)... Prince Ernest Augustus of Hanover on the other hand, was the great-great-grandchild of George III, and so would not have normally been considered a Prince of Great Britain and Ireland. (He could still be styled "His Highness, Prince..." due to his claim to be Hereditary Prince of Brunswick). My guess is that George V wanted to cut through the confusion of Ernest being a Prince (in Hanover) but not a Prince (in England)... so he made him a Prince in England... for a few years at least. Blueboar (talk) 00:54, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Except no, you're forgetting a generation. Ernest Augustus, Duke of Brunswick and his siblings were the great-great-grandchildren of George III; they were one generation beyond the consideration point too but did not have any special acts or decrees creating them prince/princess. Prince Ernest Augustus, a great-great-great-grandson of George III, somehow did. Then we have the articles of his two siblings Prince George William of Hanover (1915–2006) and Frederica of Hanover stating they were princes/princess of Great Britain before 1919 but showing no signs that there ever were other decrees creating them prince/princess, which brings up the question if the royal decree was even necessary in Prince Ernest Augustus' case.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 17:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There were no hard and fast rules when the Hanovers found themselves dethroned in and exiled from Germany, so that their royal status and titles in the UK were important enough to them to monitor and preserve. Thus to the present day they petition the Queen-in-Council for permission to marry as still required under British law (with the astonishing effect that as late as 1999 when Ernst August, Prince of Hanover wed Princess Caroline of Monaco, official consent was required from no less than three governments: the UK, Monaco and France -- yet the moment the couple were married he lost his right of succession to the British crown because the Act of Settlement still excludes any British dynast from the throne upon marriage to "a Papist"). Until 1917 British royal titles were borne by custom, not law or decree (Queen Victoria's 1864 letters patent recognizes the style of Royal Highness for children and male-line grandchildren of a sovereign, Highness for male-line great-grandchildren {the 1898 decree extends HRH to the male-line children of the Prince of Wales}, but the title of "Prince" is assumed to belong to all of the above and was not expressly conferred, in either 1864 or 1898). Until the descendants of George III who became Kings of Hanover (until 1866) and Dukes of Brunswick (until 1918), there were no great-great-grandchildren of a British sovereign in a cadet male-line. The custom, ubiquitous on the Continent by the 19th century, seems to have been that the male-line descendants of any hereditary monarch were princes, the only question being to which style (Serene Highness, Highness, Royal Highness, etc.) were they entitled. In Britain's marriage authorizations for the Hanovers there is an example in every male-line generation up to 1951 showing that the Hanoverian descendants of George III were recognized at St. James's Court as Princes of Great Britain and Ireland (although it is sometimes omitted from one or another sibling's Order-in-Council, while being present in another's, as often happens). Thereafter the Order issued in 1951 referred to the male-line great-great-great-grandson of George III born in 1914 thus, "...His Royal Highness Prince Ernest Augustus George William Christian Louis Francis Joseph Nicholas Oscar of Hanover, born Prince of Great Britain, Duke of Brunswick and Luneburg, son of His Royal Highness Prince Ernest Augustus, Duke of Brunswick-Luneburg, and Her Highness Princess Ortrud Bertha Adelaide Hedwig of Schleswig-Holstein-Glücksburg." But that was the last such usage, subsequent authorizations have not acknowledged any British titulature for the Hanovers, even nostalgically. In the 1930s the Hanovers (now also deposed as ruling Dukes of Brunswick) gave themselves British royal styles by decree (!) which, of course, have always been ignored at the British court which, however, does scrupulously continue to recognize their Hanoverian and Brunswick styles. As for whether, why and how the Hanoverian great-great-great-grandchildren were British princes: they were gazetted thus as World War I was breaking out in July 1914,"...at the Ducal Palace of Brunswick, a son was born of the marriage of their Royal Highnesses the Duke and Duchess of Brunswick and Lüneburg: And Whereas we are desirous of defining and fixing the style and designation which the issue of the said marriage shall enjoy within our dominions: Now Know Ye that we do hereby declare and ordain that the children born to their Royal Highnesses the Duke and Duchess of Brunswick and Lüneburg shall at all times hold and enjoy the style and attribute of 'Highness' with their titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their respective Christian names, or with any titles of honour which may belong to them. And we do hereby further declare and ordain that the designation of the said children shall be 'a Prince (or Princess) of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland'." FactStraight (talk) 07:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Titles Deprivation Act 1917

The Titles Deprivation Act 1917 only list four people. Did the act deprive the children of the first three from holding the title Prince/Princess of Great Britain and Ireland. All of the Duke of Cumberland's children, three of the Duke of Brunswick's children and four of the Duke of Albany's children were born before 1917. Also was the Duke of Cumberland's sister Princess Frederica of Hanover who lived till 1926 deprived of her British titles? She lived in Britain till 1898 and seem to have continued on good terms with the British royals after she moved to France given that she was buried at St George's Chapel. Did she everre visit Britain between 1917 and 1926 and wa she recognized as a British princesses at the time or a foreign royal. Please don't merge with question above.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 04:45, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

George V issued letters patent in 1917 stating that all children further than a grandchild of a monarch lost their right to being call prince anyway: "as aforesaid ["he children of any Sovereign of these Realms and the children of the sons of any such Sovereign (as per the above Letters Patent of 1864) and the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales (a modification of the Letters Patent of 1898) shall have and at all times hold and enjoy the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness with their titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their respective Christian names or with their other titles of honour" and "grandchildren of the sons of any such Sovereign in the direct male line ... shall have and enjoy in all occasions the style and title enjoyed by the children of Dukes of these Our Realms"] the style title or attribute of Royal Highness, Highness or Serene Highness and the titular dignity of Prince or Princess shall not henceforth be assumed or borne by any descendent of any Sovereign of these Realms." So Charles Edward, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha and Ernest Augustus, Duke of Brunswick would have lost their British princely titles beforehand, being great-grandchildren of a British Monarch. I'm unsure about Ernest Augustus, Crown Prince of Hanover and can only assume that Frederica wasn't deprived, being that she wasn't explicitly listed, nor was she the child of anyone listed. Sotakeit (talk) 07:46, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quibble: as I misunderstand it, the Act itself didn't name anybody; it provided for the process that resulted in the list of four. —Tamfang (talk) 20:46, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You "misunderstand" correctly. And since, among the Hanovers, only the Duke of Cumberland and his surviving son, the deposed Duke of Brunswick, were named in the Order-in-Council signed by George V on 28 March 1919, only their peerages were suspended and their British royal styles thereby forfeited. Their rights and those of their descendants to the British throne were left intact (which is why they still need the monarch's Order-in-Council to marry legally). George V's 1917 decree specifically preserved royal styles and titles granted under "unrevoked" letters patent: no document ever explicitly revoked the 1914 letters patent and so never deprived their children of their legal right to be British princes and Highnesses, although their collaterals and descendants beyond children were subject to the restrictions of the 1917 decree, which did not allow them the use of any royal styles. Still, it seems, from marital Orders-in-Council, that the children of the last ruling Duke of Brunswick were treated and styled de facto after 1919 as "former" British royalty (whence the occasional "...born Prince/Princess of GB&I"). FactStraight (talk) 07:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for an old russian short-story

I'm looking for the title of a russian short story. The protagonist is a guy, who once meets the ghost of a woman at night, they talk and she takes her on trips, they fly together to places, and it's not just geographical travel but she shows him events from the past also, I remember once he could almost saw Julius Caesar appear but he became too terrified before it happened and ran away. 0 Starfsmanna (talk) 17:46, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In what way do they fly? From your description, I'm not clear if it's 20th/21st-century aircraft, or more of a folkloric kind of flight; if you clarify this, it would help us narrow down the kind of story you're talking about. Nyttend (talk) 19:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't quite match your description, but I immediately thought of The Master and Margarita. --ColinFine (talk) 20:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He just clings to her. It's not The Master and Margarita, but thanks for trying. I didn't got to the end of it so I don't know how it ends. And it's short, can't more than 50 pages. The author is a famous old writer like Tolstoy, Dostojevskij etc.

Starfsmanna (talk) 21:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is Ghosts (Phantoms) by Ivan Turgenev (Russian title: "Призраки"), English translation at Google Books. Brandmeister^talk 22:20, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is it, thank you! Starfsmanna (talk) 07:02, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]