Humanities desk
< February 10	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 12 >

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.

February 11

What's the battle flag of the Confederate States Army?

Upon reading the Confederate States Army article, I was surprised to find that the Confederate States Army had the exact same battle flag as the Army of Northern Virginia. Is this really the case or is the Confederate States Army article mistaken?

Confederate_Battle_Flag#Battle_flag goes into great detail about the flag but still leaves me confused:

Miles had already designed a flag that would later become the Confederate battle flag, and he favored his flag over the "Stars and Bars" proposal.

"The Confederate battle flag", sounds like it's for the entire Confederate States Army.

The flag that Miles had favored when he was chair of the Committee on the Flag and Seal eventually became the battle flag and, ultimately, the most popular flag of the Confederacy.

"The" battle flag also seems to suggest it's for the entire Confederate States Army.

On the other hand, the Army_of_Northern_Virginia article says:

During his command, Gen. Beauregard is noted for creating the battle flag of the army, which came to be the primary battle flag for all corps and forces under the Army of Northern Virginia.

Dncsky (talk) 06:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indian name complexity

I need some assistance in understanding someone's name. In June last year, I moved I. C. Chacko, Illiparambil to I. C. Chacko since, as far as I could tell, Chacko was his surname. What function Illiparambil serves, I had (and still have) no idea.

That move has now been reverted, with the edit summary: Surname is Illiparambil; Chacko is his first name.

If that's true, (a) why is there a comma before the surname, and (b) What are those letters I. C. doing before the supposed first name Chacko? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I. C. Chacko seems to be a Nasrani and his name follows the naming conventions of Saint Thomas Christian names. That means, that I. C. Chacko stands for Illiparambil Corah Chacko where "Illiparambil" is his family name, "Corah" is a patronymic and "Chacko" is his first name.

It's common among Nasrani to shorten family name and patronymic name to initials. I don't know how common it is, to use the form "Initial Initial Firstname, Lastname". The only other example for this type of lemma, that I could find, is A. J. John, Anaparambil.

By the way: Looking through categories I found that many Nasrani are sorted according to first name (probably because editors didn't know about the specifics of Saint Thomas Christian names) while others are sorted according to last name. Some cleanup needs to be done in this area. --::Slomox:: >< 08:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that comprehensive answer, Slomox. In view of the issues you've mentioned, I am going to steer clear of any further involvement, and let those who know what they're doing take the running. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 11:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudonymous authors who keep/kept their identities secret for unknown or undisclosed reasons

In the Philippines, there's a relatively popular author who goes under the pseudonym Bob Ong. Unlike most authors, he never appears in public: he never gives any face-to-face interviews, he doesn't do book signings, and even when one of his popular books has now been adapted into a movie, he doesn't participate in promotions for the film. The more unusual thing is that he's never directly explained exactly why the anonymity. For example, this interview addresses his anonymity and even asks him about how he feels about it, but it doesn't ask the big question of exactly why he did so. He did once say in an e-mail interview that one reason was that so that people would appreciate the works more and not the author, but the content of the article in question implies that this is not the main reason. And regarding the movie release, when asked why he didn't "reveal himself" to promote the film, he reportedly said "what happens next?", thus not directly answering the question.

Now I have two questions regarding this:

1. Who are other examples of pseudonymous authors with situations similar to Ong? As in, they go under a pseudonym or write anonymously, whose true identities remain unknown, and have never publicly revealed the reasons for their decision?

2. In such cases, what are the likely reasons why those authors not publicly reveal exactly why they don't want their identities to be known? Other than privacy?

Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The two most famous examples are J. D. Salinger and Thomas Pynchon. Neither is a pseudonym, but they never appear(or appeared – Salinger died in 2010) in public or did any publicity for their books. As for why they did this, I think the obvious reason is also the truth – they were private people and didn't like the publicity. --Viennese Waltz 10:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd add Harper Lee to that list. She may have given one early interview; and she has famously never published anything of significance after the thing that caused all the hullabaloo. She got a swag of honorary degrees but never spoke at any of the ceremonies. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:56, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding #2: Is privacy not enough? --Jayron32 11:50, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Réjean Ducharme has never granted an interview, and has only released two pictures of himself (the most recent one dating from 1985). It's not certain whether he uses his real name or a pseudonym, but he has also worked as a visual artist under the pseudonym "Roch Plante". It's all ascribed to an intense wish to protect his privacy. --Xuxl (talk) 13:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

B. Traven is another well-known example. In his case there were probably political reasons. Hiding ones identity behind a pseudonym for political reasons - either a fear of arrest for "subversion" or to protect personal ambition and social networks - is common. Other cases are Martin Marprelate, Junius (both pseudonyms) and Joe Klein (who published as "anonymous"). In the Elizabethan era there was, allegedly at least, the so-called "stigma of print", according to which upper class people were not supposed to publish their works in case they were thought to be vulgar fellows who needed the money or publicity. There were a lot of anonymous publications under names such as "ignotus". Paul B (talk) 13:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He's an artist and not an author, but Banksy has never been positively identified. Likewise, the musician ? from ? and the Mysterians has never positively identified himself. Some journalists and music historians found a likely identity, but he's never confirmed nor denied his own identity beyond "?". --Jayron32 14:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was not going to mention artists and musicians, since the OP's question was specifically about writers. But since you've widened the scope, I'll throw in Jandek who made dozens of anonymous, self-released albums from 1978 to 2004, but is now playing live and giving interviews. --Viennese Waltz 14:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It could also be that Ong not even an individual at all, but simply the name given to a series of ghostwriters employed by the publishing company for any number of reasons. Matt Deres (talk) 17:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

J.K. Rowling wrote her second book for adult audiences under a pseudonym, so that it would be read separately from her Harry Potter series. Rojomoke (talk) 22:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James Tiptree, Jr. (Alice Sheldon) was eventually more or less stalked and outed by a fan, and didn't take it well. Details are in her biography written by Julie Philips so I won't go into it here. She discussed the reasons for the pseudonym after it became public, but pretty obviously had never intended for it to be disclosed. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 23:50, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Perry, as a child, participated in the murder of another child. Her pseudonym was adopted for that reason. Paul B (talk) 11:14, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was the mother of another child. --Viennese Waltz 11:16, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, I was just changing it when you got there before me in an edit conflict. Should have checked the article before I wrote. Paul B (talk) 11:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tons of authors write under pseudonyms. What's rarer is when the public doesn't know who really is behind the pseudonym, especially if that anonymity lasts for years in spite of commercial success. --Xuxl (talk) 12:47, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and that is what the question is about. What is your point? --Viennese Waltz 13:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that the OP asked about the relatively rare case of pseudonymous authors whose identity has remained unknown for a long time. The answers were starting to drift into being solely about authors using pseudonyms, who are a dime a dozen. --Xuxl (talk) 14:08, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is the opposite case to that of authors who have both their pseudonym and their real name shown on the dust jacket. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:51, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting the OP's request is more specific than even Xuxl indicated. They are not only looking for cases where the real identity remains unknown but for cases where the reason why they want a pseudonymity has not been publicly revealed. Several of the answers aren't just cases when the identity is known, but the reason for the pseudonymity has been mentioned as well. On the other hand, perhaps partially intentionally, these answers do highlight an important point. Namely that frequently once the identity is revealed, the reason for the pseudonymity basically also is. And revealing the reasons why the person prefers pseudonymity in cases when it's something besides a simple desire for privacy often provides a clue as to the identity. So a reason why these reasons may not be revealed. Nil Einne (talk) 13:31, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James Tiptree jr kept her name secret for a long time because of her job as did Cordwainer Smith Hotclaws (talk) 14:10, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James Tiptree, Jr. was mentioned above. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:08, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First convents in Ireland since the English conquest?

I have the impression that the English closed all the convents in Ireland after they had secured the entire Island under English Protestant rule in cirka 1600, and that Catholicism and therefore convents were banned. However, during the 1840s, it seem there were again convents in Ireland. When were the convents allowed again in Ireland? During the 18th-century? Thank you.--Aciram (talk) 15:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Catholic emancipation. Paul B (talk) 16:28, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article names reforms in general, but as far as I can see, it does not mention the issue of convents. --Aciram (talk) 18:15, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of monastic houses in Ireland gives a few clues; Dromahair Friary in Leitrim, for example, is given as "reoccupied by friars 1642 and shortly after the Restoration to 1837", and Buttevant Franciscan Friary in Cork was occupied at some point between the Restoration and 1731, when it's recorded as functioning. It looks like some may have reopened just after the Stuart restoration, but they'd have been in a pretty precarious position and I suspect mostly closed again before the late eighteenth century.

The Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 allowed RC convents in England (source), and presumably (given the legislation was universal at the time) would have made a similar allowance in Ireland. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to our article on the Protestant Ascendancy, convents were first permitted after legal reforms passed by the Irish parliament between 1778 and 1782. I've seen other sources that state that some monastic orders continued to function in the shadows and outside the law during the era of the Penal Laws, but this seems less likely for convents, since groups of unmarried women living together would have been more conspicuous than clandestine monks meeting under cover. Marco polo (talk) 20:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answers! That gave me a good understanding. So it would have been after 1782, and latest after 1829, although "secret convents" may have existed before. --Aciram (talk) 15:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]