Humanities desk
< August 4	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 6 >

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.

August 5[edit]

Orwell quote[edit]

A quote along the lines of 'some ideas are stupid only an intellectual could believe them' is often attributed to Orwell. Does anyone know the exact source? 129.67.37.143 (talk) 00:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The closest I could find was from "Notes on Nationalism": The average intellectual of the Left...could believe these things because his hatred for the British ruling class forbade him to admit that British plans could succeed. There is no limit to the follies that can be swallowed if one is under the influence of feelings of this kind. I have heard it confidently stated, for instance, that the American troops had been brought to Europe not to fight the Germans but to crush an English revolution. One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: no ordinary man could be such a fool. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've got it. Thanks Sluzzelin. 129.67.37.143 (talk) 00:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What a difference context makes.--Wetman (talk) 00:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(In that spirit I have completed the quote which I copied from wikiquote here). ---Sluzzelin talk 00:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question on serial killer Herbert Mullin[edit]

Hi, I'm doing homework for Uni on serial killers (psychology) and Herbert Mullin is who I chose among others... I'd like to know two things, he's serving life in prison but found no articles on his possible parole hearings, will he ever be up to parole? and secondly, is there any form of finding this mug shot bigger? this one Thanks all! --SouthAmerican (talk) 02:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Herbert Mullin says: He was sentenced to life imprisonment and will be eligible for parole in 2025, when he will be 78. He is incarcerated at Mule Creek State Prison, in Ione, California. Bielle (talk) 02:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I read that, but I mean if he'll ever suceed in being paroled... my English sucks. --SouthAmerican (talk) 03:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot predict the future. Parole is usually based on whether or not the authorities believe that the prisoner would pose any threat to society if paroled. Being eligible in 2025 means the earliest he could be paroled is 2025. Depending on how he behaves in prison, and how things go until then, he may not be. --Jayron32 05:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rosary beads[edit]

Were rosary beads scented (like a pomander was) during Medieval times? I notice the two many times are together - is that normal?

--Doug Coldwell ^talk 12:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the art work you present to us there seems to be very rich people depicted. The rosary was associated with the poor, and the monk particularly the monk who could not read or write, or the monk who had to work in the fields and could not get back to the Monastery for prayer. The Rosary became more popular when given by Our Lady to Saint Simon Stock as a prayer She wanted. MacOfJesus (talk) 20:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So I guess what you are saying to a non-religious layman is that rosary beads were scented like a pomander was during Medieval times and the two being together is normal.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 23:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm saying the opposite. In the article page Rosary you will find an example of a Middle Age Rosary. I suspect that perfume was out of the price-range of the poor, then. But, perhaps, a very rich devout Christian might have a sented rosary, then. I would look for evidence in North Africa and main-land-Europe. However, the two being together I could not imagine. There would be no need for both as one, the rosary, would suffice, as evidenced in the painting you present. Why not leave a question on the talk page of the article page, rosary? The monk's Rosary was generally much bigger and worn on the habit near the belt area. Since it became a popular devotion they come in all sizes and materials. In the article page Saint Simon Stock no mention of the rosary being given is evident. Why not tackle that article page with some research. The Carmelite Monastry and monks and friars would be a good place to begin. MacOfJesus (talk) 09:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, see the article page Saint Dominic, there is a section in it on the rosary. We believe he, too, was given the rosary, and that was in the period you mention.

I suspect when rich Christian traders from Europe went to North Africa they would have met perfumes being offered and it was a simple reference to combine both, i.e. the wooden rosary with the scent. MacOfJesus (talk) 09:54, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The painting shows a person in high-office, with what may be a rosary in his hand. But, as we cannot see the end of the beads we cannot confirm. The chain-of-office he wears and his seals/rings are not part of it. MacOfJesus (talk) 10:00, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for answers.

In the top picture, what is the object called in the middle of the red beads? And at the the end of the silver chain?
In the bottom picture what is the object called in the middle of those beads?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 11:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clearer paintings. The chain around the neck is the chain of office and the object on the bench is the end of that chain itself. The beads or the rosary are the object in the person's hand. The rosary has five sections called decades as each section contains 10 beads. Modern rosary beads end with a cross and a few other beads. These are rosaries of very wealthy people. The end ball is a little container, usually containing a little piece of earth, or clay, from the Holy Land. The word "Rosary" gives us a hint that the wood was probably rose-wood and naturally sented. In Italian: "Corona", referring to Mary's crown. Do you understand what the decades and the mysteries mean? MacOfJesus (talk) 16:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The lady in the top painting has, I think, a beads of rosewood and naturally sented. The hands of the second show he is a workingman and has beads of a black wood. MacOfJesus (talk) 17:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The objects at the end of the beads, I think would be referred to as "reliquary", meaning a box containing relics, usually a bit is earth form the Holy land. MacOfJesus (talk) 17:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, do NOT know anything about religion or religious objects. You are speaking to a non-religious layman that has never attended church as an adult (only a few times as a child). I have lately expanded the article on pomander and just in the process of research related to it. I understand that initially a pomander was used to carry a religious relics then later for perfumy objects (i.e. "ball of amber"). Thanks for the additional info.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 20:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but I am not that familiar with "pomander". However, in just observing the "ball" it has vents all around so I'm finding it hard to imagine a perfume to be there exept via a medium, such as a piece of wood were used. Petals, etc. would be possible. I'm not that familiar with medieval rosaries, particularly so of the rich. MacOfJesus (talk) 20:54, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A perfumed paste semi-solid material (not liguid) - see B & W second picture in Pomander#gallery of Pomanders.

The bob of gold Which a pomander ball does hold,
This to her side she does attach With gold crochet,
or French pennache.

--Doug Coldwell ^talk 21:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can see a possability. The Rosary coming from Jerusalem with the pilgrim, and when the earth did not stay in the container for any length of time and the sent of the beads wained, I can see why one would want to put in there some rose-scent to replicate the original scent. To follow this thought through and get citings I would have to research. MacOfJesus (talk) 21:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The original idea of the pomander, from the research I have done, was to ward off diseases - especially the Black Death of the 14th century. The idea was that the good smells on your person would ward off the evil bad smells that contained the infections. The side benefit was that it also acted as a deodorant, because in Medieval times cleanliness was not high on the list.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 21:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the first painting again. The chain of office/status may have what you say added to it, and so the end piece would/may be the scent defuser. The rings/sceals on the fingers indicate her authorithy. I can outline this, if you wish. MacOfJesus (talk) 11:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A "scent defuser" is a good definition for the pomander. A pomander is a "deliverer" of nice scents. You immerse the perfumed ball into the container and it becomes "the deliverer" of good smells. In Medieval times it was also "the savior" as it supposedly saved you from infections by replacing bad evil smells (of the Black Death) with the nice good smells. That was the number one reason for the pomander in the fourteenth century - as a deterrent against diseases.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 12:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In this reference on page 199 it says The use of perfumes in religious ceremonies had for its purpose the excitement of a sort of intoxication in the priests and priestesses, and also to disguise the smell of blood and of decaying matters... Also on page 200 it says The very Roman eagles were anointed with the richest perfumes before battle. --Doug Coldwell ^talk 13:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know, you have just described the origins of the thurible, censer and incense. They are still used today. Incense is usually resin beads from special trees. When a Requiem Mass was said the incence was used for this reason originally. MacOfJesus (talk) 16:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

British Prince[edit]

This article Malout mentions a certain British "prince" Vali–Ehmad- Edward. Did such a person ever exist ? -- Jon Ascton (talk) 13:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edward, Prince of Wales later King-Emperor Edward VIII.
Sleigh (talk) 14:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. But my concern is "Vali-Ehmad" element in the name that clearly smells of islam. Do you mean to say that a British king did adopt islam -- Jon Ascton (talk) 17:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wāli is a Persian term for "governor" but was used in the Ottoman Empire, not India. Vali or Bali is a Sanskrit word meaning something like "the powerful". Ehmad I don't know. Guessing the term meant prince or similar honorific. You should ask at the language desk to be sure.-70.29.47.140 (talk) 19:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has changed that bit of the article to just say "the future King-Emperor Edward VIII" now, in case anyone is confused by the article not including that phrase. --Tango (talk) 17:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas L. Blanton[edit]

In expanding our Thomas L. Blanton article, I found that Representative Blanton was censured by the U.S. House of Representatives for inserting an "obscene" letter regarding unions into the Congressional Record. In a contemporary New York Times article about the censure, Blanton's political opponent in the House described the letter as "unspeakable, vile, foul, filthy, profane, blasphemous and obscene". Naturally, I wanted to read this letter; but the Congress decided to withdraw that issue of the Congressional Record and expunge the letter from the record. Can anybody point me to this vile, unspeakable, foul letter? Googling has not helped; I only found one scholarly article complaining about the expunging (but don't have access to the article itself). Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Said scholarly article contains the most salty portion of it on the last page. It was an affidavit sent by a Millard French, reporting what a certain Levi Huber, collector of revises, told him:

G__d D___n your black heart, you ought to have it torn out of you, you u____ s_____ of a b_____. You and the Public Printer has no sense. You k_____ his a____ and he is a d_____d fool for letting you do it.

I've approximated the dash lengths in the scholarly article, which I don't think quite correspond with actual missing letters. Bad grammar in the original. Pretty tame by modern standards — probably even tame by actual salty 1920s standards (though Congressional standards of polite behavior of its members are a bit odd, anyway). As with most censored things, the censorship makes it more interesting than the original ever was. I'll add this to the Blanton article. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if that isn't the vilest thing I have ever seen in print. Thank you! I actually don't know what "u____" means, unless it's some adjectival profanity with an "un-" prefix. Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it means "ugly". Adam Bishop (talk) 13:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Availability of blood for cooking[edit]

Here in the United States, it's pretty difficult to locate blood for use as an ingredient in food. This isn't surprising, since blood-based foods are not wildly popular here. But elsewhere in the world, where things like blood sausages are eaten, is it possible to simply walk into a supermarket or butcher shop and buy blood? If so, how is it packaged? (Jars? Bottles? Cartons?) What animals does it come from? How much does it cost? I'm just idly curious. LANTZY ^TALK 23:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've never noticed it in a store in any country I lived in (in Europe that includes Germany, Scotland, Austria and Italy). I do think it spoils really fast. When I was a kid, some of our neighbours did butcher a pig every year or so, mostly to keep alive the tradition, I suspect. They always used the blood for blood sausage right away. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In China (and in some Chinese stores) you can buy pig blood (occasionally chicken or duck blood too) (it may have preservatives). It comes in a plastic jar, floating in water and looks a lot like purple tofu (it is cut into squares). Can't tell you much about the cost-- I haven't had it in a long time. 76.228.193.232 (talk) 23:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also blood as food. You can order it online here, for example: EUR 1.35 for 1000g (1 liter). ---Sluzzelin talk 01:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A data point: I live in central North Carolina. I took one of my hogs to slaughter and asked if they could save the blood for me to make sausage. They acted like they'd never heard such an outlandish request and flatly refused. --Sean 14:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Until recently in the UK there were many small slaughterhouses who would have been happy to save blood for you, but, with increasing regulation, most of them have closed down. I've never seen blood on sale, though blood products like black pudding are regularly sold. Dbfirs 09:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why was the British Empire just a kingdom?[edit]

Why did the kings and queens of the British Empire only get the title king or queen except when referring to their imperial role in India? What was special about the German Empire or the Austrian Empire or the Japanese Empire that gave their rulers the title "emperor"? Were those empires a lot more powerful than Britain's combined territories? If not, who chooses whether your territory is an empire or just a kingdom? If Queen Victoria started calling herself "Empress of the United Kingdom and Territories Beyond the Seas" because her kingdom was more powerful than other so-called empires, would some international body have called foul? --142.104.55.49 (talk) 23:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was only one official empire in medieval or modern Western Europe before Napoleon: the so-called Holy Roman Empire. It was an empire because the emperors were originally crowned such by the pope, and they had kings and princes under them. Napoleon was crowned by the pope, or crowned himself with the pope there. Most British monarchs after the Reformation were of course Protestant; nonetheless, declaring themselves "emperors" would no doubt have rankled there peers in other countries. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, you forgot the actual Empire, whose emperors didn't invent the title or have it awarded them as a political gesture by a pope who didn't like the fact that a woman was sitting on its throne. It included territories in modern Italy well after Charlemagne's time. Nyttend (talk) 02:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mwalcoff, if it requires religious approval, could the Archbishop of Canterbury have declared Victoria Empress of the UK, or did prodistants see the pope as having a special empire-making power that they didn't have? Nyttend, what makes the Eastern Roman Empire a more legitimate Empire? Is it just the fact that it can trace it roots to ancient Rome? Was ancient Rome the one true empire and all other empires had to link to it? If so, how did India give empirehood to Victoria? --142.104.55.49 (talk) 02:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was no break between the empire of Octavian and the empire of Irene. It didn't "trace its roots" to ancient Rome any more than the England of James II "traced its roots" to the England of William the Conqueror. Nyttend (talk) 02:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so what did Octavian have to let him declare his possessions an empire that Victoria didn't have? I bet the British Empire at its height had more land area and more population than Rome did when it first declared itself to be an empire. 142.104.55.49 (talk) 02:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note I specifically said Western Europe to exclude the Byzantine Empire as well as the "empires" of Bulgaria, Serbia and Russia. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At least as late as Basil II, Constantinople controlled parts of Italy. Nyttend (talk) 16:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Victoria was styled Empress of India, so she had at least one imperial title. However, in general, Western Europe disliked having more than one "Empire", as it considered the Imperial Throne to be a legitimate descendent of the Empire, meaning Rome. It's why you see that Napoleon doesn't take the Imperial title until he's dismantled the Holy Roman Empire; also why the King of Prussia does not become the German Emperor until defeating Napoleon III in the Franco-Prussian War. The other Western Empire, the Austrian Empire, took that title because of its connection to the Habsburg family, longtime holders of the HRE, again after Napoleon I dissolved the HRE. Victoria makes no claims to any European Imperial title because she had none. All the others in Western Europe who used the title could claim the right to use it, either by descent or by conquest. --Jayron32 04:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kings from Edward VII to George VI were often referred to as King-Emperor especially in reference to India. Coins in my childhood bore the inscription "Ind. Imp." (Indus Imperator) next to the king's head. Alansplodge (talk) 08:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron, I had always assumed that there was a more formal system to determine royal titles. It makes me kind of sad to think of European leaders fighting over something as silly as being heir to a title from two thousand years ago; especially when some of them had bigger empires than Rome did anyway. The British Empire (even without India) certainly looked more imperial than the lands of some of the other people who have claimed the title "emperor". Nineteenth century European monarchs should have been proud of their accomplishments (colonial oppression aside) rather than trying to bask in ancient glory. But maybe those of us outside of Europe just don't understand the symbolic significant of ancient Rome. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 09:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"sad to think of European leaders fighting over something as silly as being heir to a title" - but that is the whole game, isn't it. British kings still titled themselves king of France for a couple years after France itself no longer had kings. Until 1801 according to English claims to the French throne. The title King of Jerusalem was still being used by multiple simultaneous claimants hundreds of years after the Crusader states fell. Rmhermen (talk) 15:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't studied Henry VIII since A Level, but I vaguely remember that (I guess after the split from Rome), he added an imperial aspect to his titles. Can anyone correct me or clarify? Nothing in our article that I can see. --Dweller (talk) 10:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not true as far as I know - he simply reasserted the independence of his own sovereignty from Rome. The idea of a British Empire first appears in the reign of Henry's daughter Elizabeth I, in the writings of John Dee, the occultist. This coincided with the foundation of exploratory companies to develop trading posts and other early colonial settlements as far apart as Russia and the New World. But the idea of 'Empire', with the meaning of dominion, did not necessarily imply rulership by an emperor - at the time of Elizabeth, no-one would have disputed the title of the Holy Roman Emperor. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edward I had some imperial pretensions - see what he did with Caernarfon Castle for evidence. But his ambitious plans for an Angevin Empire - England, Scotland, Wales, a big chunk of France and Norway - for his son, fell through. --Dweller (talk) 23:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]