Humanities desk
< January 15	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 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.

January 16

Requesting a double-check on a reference

Hi, I noticed at High school secret societies the following statement: "Other elite east coast prep schools such as Deerfield Academy, Northfield Mount Hermon, Choate Rosemary Hall, The Hill School, St. Mark's School, Salisbury School and Miss Porter's School are all rumored to still be continuing underground secret societies." It was supported by this reference: Echols, Edward (1970). The Phillips Exeter Academy, A Pictorial History. Exeter Press. I was hoping to see if anyone had access to double-check the statement against the source. On the other hand, rumor doesn't seem to be the sort of thing we typically include in articles, so we could also delete the statement, but I thought that there might be a chance the source could be used to improve and clarify the article. Thanks in advance, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:19, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is a page number provided? Believe it or not, it's in my university's collection; I'll look for it tomorrow. Nyttend (talk) 01:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how a 45 year old ref could support "are all rumored to still be continuing" regardless of what it says. Looie496 (talk) 02:19, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Smacks self in face) Of course. Embarrassed I didn't think of that. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:26, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ug, now that I check the article, I see that there's no page number. While the 1970 source isn't good for the state of things today, the statement could be rewritten, "rumored to have continued into the 1970s or later". Nyttend (talk) 02:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since I'm already not a fan of the rumormongering submitted by the overzealous Wikia contingent, do you suppose it's better to just delete any mention of rumor, i.e. the entire sentence? I've met with resistance over deleting referenced statements before, but the age of the reference coupled with the fact that it is a rumor, necessitates a cut, I think. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:26, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want me to skip getting the library book? Nyttend (talk) 03:53, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Nyttend:, I would probably say yes, please skip it, unless A) it's not any trouble and B) you think there might be an inkling of useful fact to be gleaned from the book to be used in the article. I admit I'm curious if the book is helpful and if the original intention of the cite hasn't been polluted by jokers over time. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but since you're curious, I'll get it. It's at our offsite-storage facility, so I can't get it without making a request — but I made the request a few hours ago, and I'll be at the library tomorrow anyway, so getting the book will require absolutely no additional effort. Nyttend (talk) 05:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyttend: Wow, awesome, thanks for all that! I hope there's some nugget of use or else wah-wahhhh. :) I greatly appreciate the interest and effort. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ask at WP:RX for someone who has access to that reference. You could also try Google Books. RudolfRed (talk) 03:06, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks for the note, @RudolfRed:. I wasn't aware of RX. Much obliged. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I looked through the article history, and it looks like the statement in question was added in 2009, in such a way as to give the appearance that an existing reference supported it (diff here). It's my opinion that the sentence can and should be safely removed. --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 14:24, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And in keeping with WP:SOFIXIT, I have done so. --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 14:27, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, thank you, Some jerk! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:39, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Debtors' prison

What is the basic rationale for private imprisonment for debt? I'm not talking about a situation in which it's a court-imposed thing, even if it's something like "You're going to jail for the crime of not paying your debts". In other words, let's say you're in a situation in which debtors' prisons are common; someone owes you a lot of money, and as he's unable to pay, you arrange for him to be put in debtors' prison. It's one thing if the guy's wealthy and just doesn't feel like paying, as the imprisonment might convince him that it's better to pay, but I'm envisioning someone who's already bankrupt and completely unable to pay at the moment. I guess the basic question is why put someone in prison (thus unable to work or make money), since it would seemingly reduce the chances of you getting your money back — unlike in a debt bondage situation, you seemingly don't get anything out of putting the guy in prison. Nyttend (talk) 05:47, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"During Europe's Middle Ages, debtors, both men and women, were locked up together in a single, large cell until their families paid their debt."
Sleigh (talk) 06:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; I missed that. Was that the common solution in ancient and Early Modern times as well? My familiarity with the practice is a mix of those two: the parable of the unforgiving servant on one hand, and colonial and early independent USA on the other. I didn't know that it was common throughout Europe, but again, the article's comments about early modern Germany make it sound like a part of the process of court-enforced debt bondage, rather than it being the last step that the creditor can take. Nyttend (talk) 07:12, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Bankruptcy Act 1869 finally abolished imprisonment for debt in England and Wales. The Marshalsea prison was where most of London's debtors ended up. For further information, try Imprisoned Debtors from the London Metropolitan Archives. Alansplodge (talk) 08:46, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The punitive impulse often leads to punishments even today that seem irrational but are justified on the grounds of deterrence. Marco polo (talk) 15:03, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The rational for Debtor's prison was that not paying your debts was a form of crime. It was considered a form of (temporary) theft. The reason you were imprisoned (and not simply hanged like other thieves) was that the "theft" could be negated by having someone else pay off the debt on your behalf. Blueboar (talk) 16:07, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the idea of deterrence. For a similar example, a loan shark may have to occasionally break some legs, even though those people will now be less able to pay them back, in order to convince everyone else to pay on time.

Also, it might have been possible to do some work while in debtors prison. If you're a sailor, probably not, but a tailor could still alter or mend clothes inside. StuRat (talk) 18:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unless a fellow prisoner says "Hello, sailor, want to earn a quick quid?". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:33, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input. I didn't realise that it was intended to be a kind of deterrence. Nyttend (talk) 00:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Bernhardt and The Taming of the Shrew

Did Sarah Bernhardt ever play a role in an adaptation of Taming of the Shrew? I've found one reference to it but haven't found another to confirm it. Wrad (talk) 20:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which reference did you already find for this info? Do you have a link to this specific reference? Futurist110 (talk) 21:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reference is not online, and it is not in English, sorry. It is pretty obscure and off the cuff. Wrad (talk) 22:51, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is it in French? Futurist110 (talk) 22:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, it's in Arabic. It gives no indication of where or when she performed it, either, only that she did. Wrad (talk) 23:27, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I found A tabloid version, by Mrs. R.D. Shepherd, of the "Taming of the Shrew"., part of "Program of opening performance, National Sylvan Theatre, monument grounds, Washington, D.C., June 1, 1917". The program includes a letter of dedication from Sarah Bernhardt although isn't listed among the performers. 23:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I consulted some german literature and found no hint, that Sarah Bernhardt ever played the role of Katharina. According to Ina Schaberts Shakespeare-Handbuch, the performance history was studied by: Tori Haring-Smith: From Farce to Metadrama: A Stage History of "The Taming of the Shrew," 1594-1983. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1985. She should know it, perhaps ask her: Dr. Tori Haring-Smith, president. Greetings -- Andreas Werle (talk) 11:48, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Salmon's Bernhardt and the Theatre of Her Time makes several references to performances of the Shrew at venues where Bernhardt was also appearing, but these all starred other actresses. There is no reference to Bernhardt ever having performed any role in the play. Nor can I find one from any other source I can access in English or French. Paul B (talk) 17:48, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]