Humanities desk
< July 26	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 28 >

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.

July 27

Oldest named animal

Who was the oldest historically verifiable animal (not myths or gods) given a name? An animal older than Bucephalus. Are there any records/documents in which a pet dog or cat or warhorse is given a name/refer to by a name dating prior to the 4th century BC?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[1] People in ancient Egypt gave names to their dogs - as evidenced by names on their collars. Say 3000 BCE or so. Cats appear to have been generally called "Cat" ("Mau" or "Miw") or the like - but since they were gods, giving one a demeaning name would have been problematic <g>. Collect (talk) 02:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abuwtiyuw is one of the earliest. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 07:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If I had to guess (and I do, because there are two question marks in the IPA pronunciation), that dog named himself. Like Polkaroo or McGruff. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:25, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or no, I don't have to guess. Someone else already did in the article. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:29, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Christian missionaries involved in Mangareva and the Gambier Islands

I'm trying to understand Catholic missionaries that were active in Mangareva and the Gambier Islands in the 19th century besides Honoré Laval. I know of Francois Caret, Columba Murphy, Cyprien Liausu, Étienne Jérôme Rouchouze, and Louis Désiré Maigret. Can somebody help me out with finding names of additional missionaries in the islands at the time?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:36, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here’s one more: Frère Gilbert Soulié [2] who came in May 1835 with Mgr Etienne Rouchouze. I don't know how you feel about original research, but the Pipcuiens have a website with an email address [3] If you were able to get in touch with Père André Mark (former archivist for the fathers), who wrote that article that mentions Soulié, he might have a list of all the Pipuciens that went to Gambier Islands. 184.147.131.217 (talk) 01:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why would Congress want an even number of justices on the U.S. Supreme Court?

I was reading the introductory paragraphs in this article: List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States by court composition. It seems that there were many times during which our U.S. Supreme Court had an even number of seats. Why would the legislators desire that? I always assumed that, in situations such as this, an odd number of voters is preferable (to avoid ties and "split" courts). An even amount of "voters" (justices) makes no sense. What would be the rationale or the thinking back then? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2006/2/5/and-then-there-were-eight-the/ --KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting article. Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:27, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A tie vote, as I'm sure you're aware, affirms the lower court's decision. I suppose that there could be some political edge to a court that would have a predisposition to affirm, but I'm not sure what it is. GregJackP Boomer! 06:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent question. One possible political edge/advantage might be judicial stability? Maintaining the status quo? That is, cases getting affirmed (i.e., settled) more often than being "disturbed" (changed). I guess that can be an advantage, though not necessarily a political one. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(EC):Technically "ties" in the Supreme Court aren't considered ties. A "tie" in the Supreme Court is treated the same as "win" for the defendant (the lower court's decision remains in effect). SCOTUS tradition holds that ""no affirmative action can be had in a cause where the judges are equally divided in opinion as to the judgment to be rendered or order to be made."[4] This happens more often that you'd think, even with an odd number of appointed Justices, mostly due to a Justice recusing him/herself, but also due to the President not being able to get his nominee confirmed in time to hear cases. Even with today's full nine Justice panel, a 5-4 (or sometimes even a 6-3) ruling is still often considered a "split court", especially if one of the majority issues a concurring opinion that differs substantially from the majority opinion. And while that doesn't change the outcome of the case, it considerably weakens it and can leave a lot of issues open for scrutiny in later cases. So, having an odd number of seats isn't as important as it may seem at first blush.

No, a tie is not the same as a win for the respondent (the side that won in the lower court). See Supreme Court of the United States#Decision. It's the same as regards the outcome that particular case, but it's deemed not to establish a precedent; very likely a similar case will be appealed to settle the question as soon as there are 9 justices available. --65.94.50.73 (talk) 07:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent point. That is a very subtle – but critical – distinction. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:39, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As to your question, I believe the thinking behind having an even number of seats was that a 4-2 ruling, for example, was clear-cut and made more of a statement than would a 4-3 ruling. Also, as our article Supreme Court of the United States says near the top: "Because the full Court had only six members, every decision that it made by a majority was also made by two-thirds (voting four to two)." Also in that same article, it points out that the Court grew with the nation, adding Justices for each new judicial circuit created. "As the nation's boundaries grew, Congress added justices to correspond with the growing number of judicial circuits: seven in 1807, nine in 1837, and ten in 1863." The number of Justices wasn't fixed at nine until 1869. Then there was FDR's attempt to pack the Court, but that's a different story.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 06:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. I just read the article linked above (And Then There Were Eight). It states: "Alternately, a 4-4 tie would send the case back to lower courts—either to the states or the federal circuits." So, that statement is incorrect? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:31, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the sentence in context, it's clear that the author means "sends the case back unchanged", i.e. lets the lower courts decision stand. The phrasing is a bit unfortunate, but its not strictly wrong. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see your point. But, it doesn't really "send anything back", correct? It just allows the lower decision to stand. Or does it "send it back" to the lower court, and then the lower court has to "do" something? (Like "affirm" its last decision?) Or "enter" its last decision as a final judgment? Is there anything "physical" or "affirmative" that the lower court has to "do", once the Supreme Court sends it back? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 08:19, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An order is entered saying, "The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided court." A copy of the order is sent to the lower court for their formal information, but it doesn't direct the lower court to do anything. Since the Supreme Court usually grants certiorari to review final judgments (in state-court cases that's usually a jurisdictional requirement, and in federal cases it's a factor considered in deciding a cert. petition), that will usually mean the case will be over; but in some circumstances the case would continue in the lower court, just as if the Supreme Court hadn't granted cert. to begin with. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:36, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While the information provided above is generally accurate, the answer to the original question has been kind of lost. During the 18th and 19th centuries, the number of Justices corresponded to the number of judicial circuits. This is because each Justice sat as the Circuit Justice of a Circuit and, for many years, the Justices actually "rode circuit" and held court within their respective circuits. So, for example, when additional states were admitted and warranted creation of an Eighth Circuit, an eighth justice was added to the Court, and likewise later for a tenth justice. The issue of equally divided votes within the Supreme Court itself does not appear to have received a great deal of attention at that time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:21, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mute turns verbose

I read once about someone who went on to become famous (possibly a philosopher) who was mute as a child until aged four or five he came out with, as his first words, a long and complex sentence, possibly witty, which was aimed at a servant and possibly began with the word, "Madam". Can anyone help from these slender clues? --Dweller (talk) 08:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are talking about Thomas Babington Macaulay. I don't think he was mute before, but on having had hot coffee spilt on him at the age of three, is said to have announced: "Thank you, Madam, the agony is sensibly abated". The story is recounted here, but I observe it is not in our article or in wikiquote:Thomas Babington Macauley. --ColinFine (talk) 09:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That looks right, thanks. Wonder where I got the mute bit from? --Dweller (talk) 09:32, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the version I read, he had not previously spoken up to that point; there may have been confusion in variant accounts between "mute" meaning "not speaking" and "mute" meaning "unable to speak." {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 13:06, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reminded of a joke, which when told to me was about a young German boy though the gender and nationality probably varies based on who's telling it. The boy had not spoken for the first five years of his life. Finally one day when his mother serves him some cold schnitzel, he tells his mother that it's cold. At that she exclaims "You can speak!" He says "Of course I can." She asks, "Why have you not spoken until now?" and the boy responds "Up until now, everything was satisfactory." Dismas|^(talk) 13:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You beat me to it! Yes, that's an oldie of unknown origin. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't help be reminded of it myself when reading the question--enough so that I wondered if it was possible this was in fact the narrative Dweller was vaguely recalling. I suppose you are right in that it's ultimate origin is impossible to discern with any degree of certainty, but I will say that every time I have every heard this joke, it has been in Britain or in a British context, the boy is always German and the parents are (presumably British) adoptive parents. The joke is clearly meant to humorously highlight the stereotype of extreme pragmatism which British culture in particular ascribes to the Germans, which may go some way to explaining why it is (at least in my experience) not so well known in the rest of the English speaking world. Snow ^{let's rap} 13:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleuze & Guattari

How exactly did they co-write Anti-Oedipus and A Thousand Plateaus? Did they sit down together and thrash out every sentence between them? Did one of them write certain parts alone and the other redrafted it? Etc. --Viennese Waltz 09:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding was that it was almost entirely done through letters, but mostly assembled into the final product by Deleuze. But page 84 (and elsewhere) in this book talks about it specifically: Deleuze and Guattari by Ronald Bogue. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Biographical research....

Any experts on Mid 19th century hymanls? see- https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Talk:A_Comprehensive_Index_of_Names_of_Original_Authors_and_Translators_of_Psalms_and_Hymns

There are some entries that are surnames only, or in some case INITALS only.

It would be nice to expand them, response here or at wikisource. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not an answer to your question, ShakespeareFan00, but you can wikilink to other Wikimedia projects. eg. [[q:Talk:A Comprehensive Index of Names of Original Authors and Translators of Psalms and Hymns]] displays as q:Talk:A Comprehensive Index of Names of Original Authors and Translators of Psalms and Hymns. --ColinFine (talk) 17:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why did France declare war on Britain in 1793?

Why did France declare war on Britain in 1793? I know tensions had been worsening since the execution of Louis XIV earlier in 1793, but it was France that declared war on Britain. And I wanted to know what the specific reasons the French Republic gave to justify opening war with the UK. --Gary123 (talk) 23:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

England was rather hawkish - and had expelled the French Ambassador it seems before the declaration of war, with the war basically seeming a tad mutual by that point. As for "reasons for war" - the war had already started a year or so earlier - and had the "usual reasons" I suppose. Collect (talk) 23:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely a preemptive strike since they also declared war on the Dutch Republic in 1793 and the region was of strategic value to the British defense from a continental invasion. Also France was pretty much at war with almost every major nation in Europe during this period. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Although they don't really specifically answer the question, our articles about this are French Revolutionary Wars and War of the First Coalition. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to Carlyle: "England declares war,-- being shocked principally, it would seem, at the condition of the River Scheldt. Spain declares war; being shocked principally at some other thing; which doubtless the Manifesto indicates. (23d March, Annual Register, p. 161.) Nay we find it was not England that declared war first, or Spain first; but that France herself declared war first on both of them; (1st February; 7th March, Moniteur of these dates.)-- a point of immense Parliamentary and Journalistic interest in those days, but which has become of no interest whatever in these." Tevildo (talk) 13:49, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]