Humanities desk
< June 16	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	Current desk >

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.

June 17

The London Residence of the Painter Pieter Christoffel Wonder

The Staircase of the London Residence of the Painter

The painter Pieter Christoffel Wonder, a Dutchman, lived in London from 1823 to 1831. It has been suggested that his painting The Staircase of the London Residence of the Painter represents Goderich offering his resignation to the King, represented by a Spaniel. What I would like to know is where was the London residence of the painter and does it still stand, and did Wonder have a dog while he lived there? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 10:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Supposedly the address is on the tag attached to the rabbit's foot. Abductive (reasoning) 20:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to this article (14th item down), the message on the hare's foot includes the word "Sudbourne" where in 1828, there was a shooting accident at a hunting party for Tory politicians, resulting in Henry Frederick Cooke and two boys being injured (represented by the hare and the two small partridges); part of an elabotrate allegory. The London address has eluded me. Alansplodge (talk) 21:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note to OP see here. DuncanHill (talk) 12:33, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

French election

[1] Does that mean what it looks like, that Marine Le Pen and her party are about to completely pwn France? Is that like Trump winning all 50 US states in the US election? Is there a main issue that caused this sudden takeover? I don't understand at all how French politics work, but I see from the relevant WP articles that Le Pen has been trying to soften her party's formerly far right image, to now be more centre-right. Is that legit, or posturing? Thanks. 2601:644:8501:AAF0:0:0:0:78AE (talk) 12:19, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what that Tweet is referring to, but according to the article 2024_French_legislative_election the election will be held on June 30 and July 7. RudolfRed (talk) 15:15, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The RN won 30 out of 81 French seats in the European Elections. The national elections later this month are done using a completely different system which elects one person from each constituency, and has a second round of voting if no candidta ehas 50% at the first vote. That often means that the RN gets the most votes the first time, then at the second vote the other parties all side with the runner up to prevent the RN candidate being elected. They should do well - but will probably not form the next government 2A00:23C5:2228:B301:29CE:A868:7FA4:ECA7 (talk) 15:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(EC)The tweet is based on the recently completed 2024 European Parliament Elections. That election was run in a single round with a large number of national lists (30+) in competition, and results were strictly proportional. The Rassemblement National (as the party now calls itself) won a plurality in most regions, including in places where it had not done well historically - hence the map. The upcoming legislative election will be held in two rounds, in small electoral districts, with three or four large blocks in competition; in those elections, a plurality is not enough to win. So, you can't simply extrapolate results from one election onto the other. In past legislative or presidential elections, the RN (or its predecessors) tended to do well in the first round, and then face a coalition of all of their opponents in the second round, because they are still considered to be "beyond the pale", which resulted in fewer seats won in Parliament than would have occurred with a "normal" party. The question is whether this dynamic will play again in a few weeks. No one really knows at this point. Xuxl (talk) 15:46, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation RudolfRed (talk) 00:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, factually the snap election in France is still ongoing so I can not provide you another information that is neutral. However recently Le Pen has taken steps to distance herself from far-right parties such as the German AfD. Hanoi2020 (talk) 17:18, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quatermain and Marmion

According to our article The Ingoldsby Legends, Allan Quatermain quotes part of Scott's Marmion in King Solomon's Mines, but mistakenly says it is from Ingoldsby. Which bit of Marmion was it? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 22:29, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The quote comes in chapter 14 of KSM:

The stubborn spearmen still made good
The dark impenetrable wood,
Each stepping where his comrade stood
The instant that he fell.

"as I think the Ingoldsby Legends beautifully puts it." Robert Louis Stevenson protested against the misattribution, but Haggard blamed Quatermain's poor literary education rather than his own. [2] All the same, I see that in my copy of KSM the attribution reads "as someone or other beautifully says", so the criticism must have stung. In Marmion you can find the lines in Canto 6, stanza 34, though Scott has "their dark impenetrable wood". --Antiquary (talk) 07:42, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With a little searching of the Project Gutenberg version, I think it's this passage from Chapter 14:

As for the fight that followed, who can describe it? Again and again the multitudes surged against our momentarily lessening circle, and again and again we beat them back.
“The stubborn spearmen still made good The dark impenetrable wood, Each stepping where his comrade stood The instant that he fell,”
as someone or other beautifully says.

That's from Marmion, but not attributed to Ingoldsby at all. At the start of the story, Quartermain the narrator says "I am not a literary man, though very devoted to the Old Testament and also to the Ingoldsby Legends.” There's also an actual quote from Ingoldsby at the start of chapter 6. Perhaps we should mention one of those things in our article instead (if any of this is really wiki-notable, which I doubt). Chuntuk (talk) 07:43, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both. The Oxford World's Classics edition Antiquary links to is based on Cassell's first, 1885, edition. The Gutenberg text to which Chuntuk links is a 1907 edition. So my inevitable next question is "When did Haggard gloss over Quatermain's error?" DuncanHill (talk) 11:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not yet fixed in this 1901 edition. Chuntuk (talk) 18:02, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is hardly conclusive, but of the many editions listed at Library Hub Discover the only pre-1907 one described as "Revised" is the 1905 Cassell one. --Antiquary (talk) 19:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But, as I feared, that proves nothing. The Oxford World Classics edition tells us that after the first edition "Haggard subsequently made minor revisions to correct errors in early reprints and then added further revisions for the Revised New Illustrated Edition in 1905." --Antiquary (talk) 20:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]