Humanities desk
< April 28	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 30 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

April 29

Identify medal please

Can someone identify the medal being worn in this picture please? SpinningSpark 00:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most definitely the Legion of Honour. The image is not detailed enough for me to find out the exact version but it is most likely either the July Monarchy version or Second Empire version. StellarHalo (talk) 00:38, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it to be that of a chevalier du Légion d'honneur from the Second Empire. According to the page from which the picture was taken Jacob Brett was invested as such in November 1855. DuncanHill (talk) 00:39, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like a British crown in the medal? I tried this search and saw some candidates. 2602:24A:DE47:B270:DDD2:63E0:FE3B:596C (talk) 00:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to Legion_of_Honour#Gallery that would be an imperial or royal crown. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the Second French Empire, it would be a representation of this crown; British crowns have only two arches. Alansplodge (talk) 11:30, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

denouement

Ok, HPMOR is one of those insufferably long but has-many-good-parts novels that I've been skipping around in, The good guys have been battling the bad guy for 1000s of pages, and finally near the end, the bad guy (Voldemort) captures the main good guy (Potter). And there is an interminable dialogue where Vold explains what he was really doing in all the mysterious plot twists going up to that part. This is apparently such a common trope that rule #6 of the Ansprach Evil Overlord List[1] cautions against it:

6. When I've captured my adversary and he says, "Look, before you kill me, will you at least tell me what this is all about?" I'll say, "No." and shoot him. No, on second thought I'll shoot him then say "No."

What are some other well known novels where something like this happens (longwinded explanation by the villain)? I read most of the James Bond books way back, but scenes like that don't really stick in my mind from them. Also is it known to happen in real life? For us to know about it, of course, the hero would have to survive to tell the tale, so maybe it happens but is unknown. Thanks. 2602:24A:DE47:B270:DDD2:63E0:FE3B:596C (talk) 00:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EvilGloating 93.136.9.236 (talk) 01:09, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Yes, that's exactly it. 2602:24A:DE47:B270:DDD2:63E0:FE3B:596C (talk) 01:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That situation is lampooned in this HISHE clip.[2] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:40, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Or forever hold your peace

In the traditional Christian wedding ceremony, the priest says "If anyone here present knows why this couple should not be joined in holy matrimony, let him speak now or forever hold his peace". If someone present did know of a valid objection (e.g. one of the parties is already married) but chose to remain silent, is that person prevented from ever raising this issue later? And if they did, and it can be shown they knew of it at the time of the wedding, could they be charged with an offence? Accessory to bigamy, say? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has an article, Speak Now or Forever Hold Your Piece, which disappointingly is about an American television programme (perhaps the spelling should have given it away). A hatnote is required. Alansplodge (talk) 11:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I read through that article and am none the wiser about what sense of the word "piece" could be in use here. I would want to guess either a handgun or a casual sexual partner, but neither really is suggested by the plot summary. I suppose if I really cared I could try to track down the episode on some streaming service. --Trovatore (talk) 20:38, 29 April 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Maybe "piece of jewelry" in reference to the ring? Or "piece of my mind" as in "I'll give him a piece of mymind"?--Khajidha (talk) 20:46, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's based on the idiom "to speak one's piece" (which could perhaps be related to "give someone a piece of one's mind"). AnonMoos (talk) 23:04, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AnonMoos are you talking about the usage in Psych? That I don't really follow. The usual term (outside of Psych) is to hold one's peace, not "piece". --Trovatore (talk) 04:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about the show, but "Hold your piece" is presumably based on a hybridization of the two idioms or constructions "Speak your piece" and "Hold your peace" (whether attemptedly humorous or the result of mere confusion, I don't know)... AnonMoos (talk) 09:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the legal system. What If Someone Objects at Your Wedding? says that the phrase is obsolete in the US because a civil wedding license [sic] is required before the church ceremony and therefore any legal objections must be raised before the license is issued.

The phrase comes from the Book of Common Prayer and in the UK, clergy in the Church of England and the Church of Wales can act as registrar for weddings. Weddings in other denominations' churches either have to be attended by a civil registrar, or a member of the church may be appointed to act as one, or you can go from the church to a Register office and have a second civil ceremony. In the case of Anglican churches, Banns of marriage have to be publicly read in church in the preceding weeks with the phrase "If any of you know any reason in law why they may not marry each other you are to declare it". These reasons might be that one of them is already married, or perhaps they breach the Kindred and Affinity rules, which is church law and not necessarily the law of the land. If these issues are only raised after the wedding, then there has to be an annulment procedure in court. I couldn't find anything about a penalty for not declaring an impediment, it seems a bit unlikely. Alansplodge (talk) 13:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It always struck me as an outsider that it's quite an interesting inclusion in a wedding ceremony. What are the origins of asking people if they have any objections to a wedding? Do an array of Christian traditions (Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Coptic etc) include this, or just Anglican? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:10, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was married in a Baptist church (specifically one that was affiliated with the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship) and we as a couple, in collaboration with the minister that married us, designed our own ceremony. My impression at the time was that we basically had the freedom to organize the ceremony however we wanted within the general framework of how Christian weddings usually go, and there was no specific set of words or formulations we had to use. In fact, both the minister and us each researched various Christian wedding traditions and formulations and prayers and such from a wide range of Christian traditions (Lutheran, Catholic, Presbyterian, whatever) and brought them together and came up with a ceremony we all liked. However, there was no use of any form of the "if anyone objects..." bit. We didn't use it, we just went into the "by the power vested in my by the State of Virginia, I now pronounce you husband and wife" bit without asking if anyone wanted to object. --Jayron 32 14:24, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not part of the Catholic rite ([3]), and not in the Orthodox one either, as far as I'm aware. Fut.Perf. su 14:41, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, where did it come from? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:38, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Was Alansplodge's explanation in the first sentence of his second paragraph that startes with "The phrase comes from..." insufficient for answering your question? --Jayron 32 17:15, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. He answered where the phrase comes from, not where the concept does. If it's not in the Catholic rite, where did Anglicanism get the idea of including such an oddity in the marriage ceremony from? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 23:14, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The original 1662 text is here:

"Therefore if any man can shew any just cause, why they may not lawfully be joined together, let him now speak, or else hereafter for ever hold his peace". Note that "man" in Prayer Book English means "human" and women were allowed to speak up too. This was the only form permissible until the 1970s. It's still an option to use this wording in the Church of England, although I suspect few do. The current form is:

"First, I am required to ask anyone present who knows a reason why these persons may not lawfully marry, to declare it now".

Alansplodge (talk) 17:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I'm not asking about the words. Where does the idea of asking if anyone has any objections come from? It's not in the Jewish rite. It's not in the Catholic rite. Why did Anglicanism come up with it? If Anglicanism felt there was a need for it, why didn't Catholicism? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:40, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The question isn't about objections ("she should have married me!") but the legality of the marriage - i.e. whether the parties are ineligible to marry either because either is married already, or too young, or they are too closely related. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 09:12, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This [4] article in the Catholic Encyclopedia speaks of a wide variety of regional rites in pre-reformation England, including one "Sarum rite", which was subsequently taken over by the Anglican church and was also continued by British Catholics into the 17th century and beyond. A printed Latin version from 1604 (as mentioned in that encyclopedia article) is found here [5]. It contains a passage corresponding to the Anglican formula ("si quis ex vobis aliquid dicere sciat, quare isti adolescentes legitime contrahere non possint, modo confiteatur"). Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:50, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you FPAS, that answers my question. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:12, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Our article is called Use of Sarum. Alansplodge (talk) 11:10, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Besides bigamy, incest might be another reason to object. Imagine Luke Skywalker actually getting Princess Leia, before they find out they are related. Darth Vader might feel obligated to show up at the wedding and spill the beans. 173.228.123.39 (talk) 19:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Table of Kindred and Affinity Wherein Whosoever are Related are Forbidden by the Church of England to Marry Together. Alansplodge (talk) 11:04, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When this question popped up yesterday afternoon I prepared a translation of the pre-Reformation Church of England formula, which is this:

Admoneo igitur vos omnes, ut si quis ex vobis qui aliquid dicere sciat quare isti adolescentes legitime contrahere non possint, modo confiteatur.

[I therefore warn you all that if there be any of you who know anything to say why these young people legitimately cannot come together, confess now.] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:F782:C601:11E1:6227:1A66:E615 (talk) 16:01, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I thought of this when the question first came up but decided to wait since it as largely uncited. Anyway I'm fairly sure that in the US, where the First Amendment to the United States Constitution is very strong, there is no way that attending a wedding means you"ve entered into a binding contract to "hold your peace", so can be in any way prevented from commenting in the future. Of course, it's possible that after the ceremony is completed and the marriage has been formalised, the consequences of speaking may be different. (If the final steps in the marriage aren't completed, they may never be, but if they have been, it may not mean the marriage is automatically void or at least something may need to be done to confirm this.)

While the phrasing may be obsolete i.e. unneeded because it's not a useful way to find possible problems, I find it unlikely a celebrant is supposed to completely ignore any legal barriers raised at the ceremony simply because they weren't raised earlier. Although in the absence of compelling evidence or confession from the couple, they may just continue and then report the possible problem to some authority. The fact that legal barriers are looked beforehand doesn't mean they are always detected, indeed LiveScience seems to acknowledge this themselves. "Rarely" is not "never". While bigamy, close kinship and age have already been mentioned, it's worth remembering as mentioned in Livescience that there are other barriers. Notably Bride kidnapping which is still a problem in some places and of course something that needed to be dealt with historically e.g. [6] [7].

About age, it strikes me that this is an area where in modern times "forever hold your peace" may in fact be close to the opposite of legally binding. Some jurisdictions have introduced compulsory reporting of child abuse generally including sexual offences against a child. Who this applies to and in what circumstances varies widely but in some e.g. Wyoming in the US [8], it seems to apply to everyone and a child is anyone under the age of 18. Wyoming isn't the best example since, as with a number of jurisdictions in the US they still allow marriages for those under the age of 18, in this case with parental and judge consent if under 16 or just parental consent if under 18 [9], and most jurisdictions modify age of consent laws when there is a marriage (although I couldn't work out where this was in Wyoming's law [10]) and even a marriage where the necessary consent wasn't in place, the marriage is at best only voidable rather than void [11] [12].

Still there have been multiple failed attempts to modify Wyoming law to make a marriage where one of the parties is under 18 void [13]. And while this is not legal advice, it seems to me that if this were to pass, someone who is fairly sure that a 50 year old is knowingly married to a 15 year old and that sex is likely part of their relationship, would potentially be a mandatory reporter. So "forever holding their peace" could in fact get them in legal trouble. (The mandatory reporting may have begun with the wedding assuming they were aware of one party being underage, but it probably doesn't end there. In fact, I'm doubtful that "speak now" by screaming out "you sick fuckers, she's 15 years old" at the wedding would help much when it comes to mandatory reporting requirements.) You may be able to find jurisdictions where this already applies in some circumstances. (Even if it only applies to teachers or parents for example, they may be at the wedding. Although the parents may face charges beyond just not reporting.)

Nil Einne (talk) 06:02, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, the injunction to hold one's peace is not included in the modern form of words. Alansplodge (talk)

"As noted above, the injunction to hold one's peace is not included in the modern form of words." No, it was shown that a particular denomination's standard ceremony doesn't use the phrase. Many weddings where I'm from do include it. --Khajidha (talk) 12:09, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Khajidha, that's the point. It appears to be unique to Anglicanism (and Methodism whose liturgy is based on the BCP) but is no longer in regular use. Alansplodge (talk) 11:02, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Except that I've never been to a wedding in EITHER of those denominations, but still encounter it quite often. You can't say that it "is not included in the modern form of words" because there is no single modern form. --Khajidha (talk) 11:48, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's become a commonly-used idiom in English, particularly British English, because of its usage in marriage ceremonies for 300 years. Plenty long enough to sear itself into the collective consciousness of the British nation and hence beyond. --TammyMoet (talk) 21:01, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to all who responded. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:09, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]