Humanities desk
< November 28	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 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.

November 29

Purpose of education in the 19th century

Why would children in the 19th century who were expected to grow up to be factory workers or other laborers need to learn to read? Why did anybody pay for their education? 135.180.147.13 (talk) 05:45, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At the beginning of the 19th century, most people worked in agriculture, not factories. But agriculture was already in the process of mechanization. Water mills had been around for a long time for pumping and grinding grain. Steam engines were becoming more commonplace. The Old Farmer's Almanac has been published in the US since 1792, and a farmer needed to read in order to take its advice and that of other similar publications. Literacy helped people learn to operate cotton gins, harvesters and later tractors. Farmers need to understand basic math and keep financial records. The same is true of factory workers. A literate worker can learn new processes and new machinery much more quickly. They can keep basic production records and communicate more effectively with management. Plus, there was a yearning to learn to read for religious, political and entertainment purposes as well. The rapid expansion of the railroads also played a powerful role in shaping popular attitudes toward education. Such a complex industrial operation required million of literate workers to operate properly.Cullen328 (talk) 06:16, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly for moral reasons. You see a lot of middle-class and upper-class campaigning for schools for the poor, public education, orphanages, etc, from this perspective, with the side benefit that schools are safer than factories. Of course, then once you've taught poor children how to read you then end up with the opposing moral panic: poor kids like reading penny dreadfuls. -- asilvering (talk) 06:28, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

...Or equally dreadful but somewhat less cheap dime novels on the other side of the pond. 136.56.52.157 (talk) 06:59, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on when in the 19th century you are looking, there are LOTS of educational theorists who have written LOTS explaining their reasoning for universal education. Horace Mann, Catharine Beecher, and Henry Barnard spring to mind especially for the early-to-mid 19th century United States, as do Joseph Lancaster and Andrew Bell in the UK. Later reformers in the later part of the 19th century include John Dewey and Booker T. Washington. --Jayron 32 10:16, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, the thinking was that an illiterate urban population was a danger to established society. Reformer Robert Lowe said that "we must educate our masters" (i.e. the electorate). Charles Dickens made a similar point in A Christmas Carol, when the Ghost of Christmas Present reveals two ragged children from under his cloak:

This boy is Ignorance. This girl is Want. Beware them both, and all of their degree, but most of all beware this boy, for on his brow I see that written which is Doom.

Additionally, the churches, who initiated education of the poor, knew that literacy was essential for participation in their services, but also saw it as part of their mission to improve their lives. Alansplodge (talk) 13:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Outside the English-speaking world, Jules Ferry is the one who introduced universal free education in France around the same period - and for similar reasons. Xuxl (talk) 13:54, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chairs of the RNC

Our article on Republican National Committee does not list Mary Dent Crisp as having been a chair, but other sources [1] cite her as having been. Is there an official list we can turn to? I'm thinking that Wikipedia is just wrong in this case, but don't want to make the change if I'm mistaken. Thoughts? If she's omitted, is there a way we can check that nobody else is? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:28, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your external link doesn't work for me, but her article says she was a "Co-Chair", which is not always the same as being the chair... AnonMoos (talk) 15:19, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! you're right co-chair is a different position than chair. The more you know. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:29, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Medieval castle construction

Did the stone craftsmen that designed medieval castles and did the construction have a particular title (i.e. masons)? Was there cement of some type used that held the large stones together? Christie the puppy lover (talk) 15:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's a bit of into in Cement#History; sounds like it depends on location as much as time period. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 15:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The terminology for someone that is involved in the construction of stone structures, such as castles, are stonemasons, is a relatively modern term, dating only to 1733: [2]. However, the older term "mason" for the same job dates to c. 1200,[3] and would have been in use during the high-to-late middle ages in English. It came into English via the French post-conquest, so the term would have been used alongside the native Anglo-Saxon term which would have been "stonewright" or some variation thereof. The role of Architect was not really yet well defined, the person who was in charge of designing and building castles would have been a master builder (or "master mason" as it were). As noted at Architect, having someone with a dedicated job of "Architect" as distinct from master builder was not widespread prior to the early modern period, likely not before the 17th century; prior to the Renaissance it would have been considered a subset of the craft of masonry, suitable for the lower classes, and not an academic pursuit of the upper classes. There are not a lot of "master masons" whose names are necessarily known to history from the medieval period; though there are some such as Alexander the Mason, William the Englishman, and Geoffrey de Noiers about whom we know a little. After Architecture became a formal academic discipline, the role of master builder grew over time into other jobs such as general contractor and project manager and the like. --Jayron 32 16:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On a tangent:

The names of the architects of the Hagia Sophia (Isidore of Miletus and Anthemius of Tralles) are well known. Clearly, this is not a medieval castle but a highly complex Byzantine structure.

Neither of these men were simple stone masons but highly educated and skilled mathematicians. Well, their dome collapsed a bit later, only to be redesigned by Isodore´s nephew as a ribbed construct.

--Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 17:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is true; the Byzantine culture had a very different organization of this kind of work than did Western European medieval culture. Castle work would have been overseen by a master mason. --Jayron 32 18:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the best-known castle architect in Western Europe was James of Saint George (1230-1309), who is generally described as a "master mason". Alansplodge (talk) 13:33, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a side note regarding "architect" vs. "master mason", this is one of those semantic things that gets tied up with history and culture and especially class and privilege and the like. Whether we describe the person doing the designing of the building as an "architect" or an "engineer" or a "master builder" or whatever really depends how they came to be a building designer. If the person was an academic (read: rich, privileged person who studied at a university) who used mathematics and geometry to design the building, their going to be referred to as an architect. If the person started as a craftsman/laborer (read: poor, working class person, commoner), who through experience and on-the-job training, learned how to design buildings, they're going to be referred to as a "master builder". --Jayron 32 13:42, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that "architect" is literally Greek for "chief builder", so this is a case of the fancy foreign word having higher prestige than the native word that meant the same thing. Iapetus (talk) 11:12, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Idiomatic translation

Hi Folks can you please provide a English translation of this wee poem in French:

Du sommeil de la mort tout prêt à s’endormir… Mon père retenait son âme délirante Par les liens du souvenir.

Its for Élisa Mercœur. Thanks.

scope_creep^Talk 16:57, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so poignant. Something like “Poised to fall into the sleep of death, my father yet holds his delirious soul by the ties of memory.” 70.67.193.176 (talk) 17:01, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@70.67.193.176: Thanks a bundle. That is excellent. scope_creep^Talk 17:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The verb form retenait is past tense ("imparfait"), so "held" is a more literal translation. --Lambiam 22:19, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"yet held" seems a bit awkward. Google translate does a fair job on the 2nd part: My father held back his delirious soul by the bonds of memory. 136.56.52.157 (talk) 22:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"yet held" works for me, but of course has a slightly different meaning: "held back" suggests the holding back was only being done at that particular moment, whereas "yet held" implies that the holding had been going on for some time. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 176.249.29.80 (talk) 04:13, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"held onto"? "clung to"? "yet" does not fit the original, for me. —Tamfang (talk) 07:07, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One can see "yet held" as a two-word translation of French retenait, making the unspecified duration of the French imparfait more explicit. --Lambiam 18:50, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]