Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 June 24

Prometheus Unbound

Towards the beginning of Shelley's drama, The Earth recounts:

The Magus Zoroaster, my dead child,

Met his own image walking in the garden.

That apparition, sole of men, he saw.

For know there are two worlds of life and death:

One that which thou beholdest; but the other

Is underneath the grave, where do inhabit

The shadows of all forms that think and live

Till death unite them and they part no more;

Dreams and the light imaginings of men,

And all that faith creates or love desires,

Terrible, strange, sublime, and beauteous shapes.

What was Shelley's basis for this idea? Is there any other instance in mythology or literature of a notion that the unconscious thoughts and dreams of men lurk somewhere deep within the earth?

Incidentally, the first two lines are two of the eeriest in all poetry. I remember Charles Williams made them the scaffold on which he constructed his novel Descent into Hell. Does anyone know if Shelley made this up, or whether it's based on a story in Zoroastrianism? MelancholyDanish 02:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)MelancholyDanish

The idea that dreams come from a subterranean place is very common...Greek myth had dreams proceding from a cavern in Hades, true dreams via the Gate of Horn, and false dreams via the Gate of Ivory. = Nunh-huh 03:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The Magus Zoroaster, Melancholy Danish? Have a look at the page on Doppelgänger, the section headed Percy Bysshe Shelly, and then dream of magic and fire! Clio the Muse 02:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It's also basic idealism, which Shelley loved. In fact, Prometheus Unbound is sort of about (if it really is about anything, and I'm not sure it is) what happens when the ideal and real are unleashed and the power of the soul. The Romantics toyed with this over and over and over again, and they loved the sea as an image of the vast sublimated unknown. This might well show up in the sub-conscious of Freud. It surely shows up in the sacred river Alph "in thick fast pants" (I've always wondered if thick, fast pants were like hot pants in any way) in Kubla Khan and the murmuring voices of the subterranean oceans of the dead. Coleridge's insistence that the dead souls live in an underground (or just under something) comes from his own very pronounced idealism and worrying at the idea of subject/object, and Shelley, of all the 2nd generation, seems to pick up on that and spin it toward a more psychological side. Utgard Loki 14:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Those are "thick fast pants heaving." That's quite a different image. Geogre 21:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Byzantine Hallos

On a more random note, can anyone tell me how kings and important officials greeted one another in early-mediaeval Byzantium? Was there a certain set of formalities, or is it even recorded in our histories? MelancholyDanish 02:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)MelancholyDanish

I don't know for sure, but find a copy of De Ceremoniis, it might record such greetings. Adam Bishop 18:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thanks! That's marvelous

In particular the greetings on this translated part, although directed at foreigners, may give some idea.  --Lambiam^Talk 22:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Food imports into Canada

Does Canada place countervailing tariffs on food that other countries subsidize? NeonMerlin 04:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Do we really not have this article?

I noticed that The Luck of Roaring Camp, by Bret Harte, is a redlink. I was surprised to see that, since I always thought it was a significant American short story. Furthermore, I didn't see it listed in any of the relevant Wikipedia:Missing articles pages. Is it possible that we have the article here under a slightly different title? Zagalejo 07:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I see no redlink. ;) --TotoBaggins 15:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. ;) I would have done it myself eventually, but I was just double-checking to make sure there were no alternate titles. Cheers! Zagalejo 17:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

An Essay of Criticism of Alexander Pope

I would like to know what kind/form of poetry the above-mentioned poem is. Also, I would like to know where I can find the interpretation or explanation of each of the lines of that poem. Another is that I am curious why that poem is called an essay. Thank you very much for any assistance.

Try Alexander Pope, Essay on Criticism, heroic couplet, and Essay, for some definitions of the form. --Wetman 18:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

There are lots of critical essays on this Essay; so just google the appropriate cues. Clio the Muse 02:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we could say that it's heroic couplets and ask him to read that? He won't, probably, but we could wish him as much time reading answers as writing questions. Oh, and line-by-line is called "annotated," and that ain't free. Utgard Loki 15:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Worms

Nobody likes me, Everybody hates me, I'm going down the garden to eat worms. Anyone know where this poem/lyric originally came from? -- SGBailey 11:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Some searching shows that it is a song by The Boys (UK band), called "The Worm Song." I am not sure whether they were the first to use it though. --User:Krator (t c) 11:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I was singing that song well before the 1976 release of that record. --TotoBaggins 15:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, 1949^[1] counts as "well before" 1976. dr.ef.tymac 16:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I suspect this lyric predates The Boys. I've always heard it ``nobody likes me, everybody hates me, guess I'll go eat worms. The NIH seems to think that the rest of the song goes well to the tune of Polly Wolly Doodle. Llamabr 14:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• I had imagined that it was from some form of Victorian Music Hall - or that era anyway. Is the "Guess I'll go eat worms" and American variant? I've (UK) only ever heard the garden line. The Polly Wolly Doodle thing needs to be read with care, it says that they can't find a midi of the corect tume and it is nearly P.W.D. but recommend NOT playing the midi if you already know the correct tune. -- SGBailey 20:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Is the tune to the "Guess I'll Go" version the same? The lines scan very differently. -- SGBailey 20:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I learned it as I'm gonna go eat worms. Two of The Kids in the Hall sang it with the tune I know, though I don't recall their exact words, in a skit on a bus. —Tamfang 03:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

What d'ya know, here's the very skit (season 1 disc 2 episode 10): "Nobody likes us, everybody hates us, think we'll go eat worms. Big fat juicy ones, eeny-weeny squeamy[?] ones, see how they wiggle and squirm. Cut off their heads and squeeze out their juice and throw their tails away. Nobody knows how we survive on worms three times a day." —Tamfang 16:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

"First you bite their heads off/Then you suck their guts out/Then you throw their skins away..." F-D-C/F-D-C/F-G-F (F-G-F-F-E-E For the end of the first line) A chanty sing-song. I believe there is a line I've forgotten describing the characteristics of the worms, before this line. Skittle 22:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I too have wondered about the tune because I own this picture of a sad child with the caption reading: NOBODY LOVES ME "Nobody loves me. I'm going into the garden to eat worms. Yesterday I ate two smooth ones and one woolly one."

The picture is copyrighted 1905 by Charles Scribner's Sons and signed by a V.C. Anderson. The picture has been in my family for years but I have never found its origins. Researching on the Internet I discovered the tune and also found a postcard on e-bay which I purchased.

The color postcard has the same info. and caption as the black and white framed picture but I'm still no further into the history of the kid who eats worms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeistDennis (talk • contribs) 01:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I remember my mother singing this as something from her childhood. She was born in 1926, so I'm sure the song is very old. Daddygringo (talk) 14:16, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

My mother sings this song sometimes, but in Ukrainian. It goes something like "ніхто мене не любить, ніхто мене не хоче, піду я у садочок, наїмся черв'яків." which translates as "Nobody loves me, nobody wants me, I'll go into the garden [and] eat worms." She always claimed that it came from the story of the Ugly Duckling. 2601:152:4000:BA50:787E:9D24:1C41:8ABA (talk) 12:34, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Book by Suvorov

The Russian general Suvorov wrote a book called "Rules for the Conduct of Military Actions in the Mountains." What is the background to this? Mr. Crook

Suvorov's Swiss Campaign of 1799 (Cassano d'Adda, Trebbia, Novi). Wikipedia does not cover his epic march across the Alps in detail. --Ghirla^-трёп- 18:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

You speak the truth, Ghirla. In such cases, I prefer to say "Wikipedia does not yet cover ....", allowing for the inevitability of such coverage. In time, WP will in some way or another cover all human knowledge. It's only a question of time. Then when we've done that, we'll move on to the next world - probably in more ways than one.  :) -- JackofOz 01:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It should! This is one of the epic tales of military history, at least the equal to that of Hannibal.

Suvorov's march over the Alps forms part of the War of the Second Coalition. Although he was by 1799 nearly seventy years old, Suvorov was one of the great soldiers of the age, who had won no fewer than sixty-three battles in the course of his long military career. He had been appointed field marshal during the reign of Catherine the Great, though he was dismissed by Tsar Paul, her son and successor, after the old soldier had the audacity to criticise the new imperial Infantry Code. He was only recalled after the Austrians specifically requested that he be appointed to command the combined Austro-Russian army, fighting the French in Italy.

Taking command on 19 April, Suvorov moved his army westwards, in a rapid march towards the Adda River, covering over 300 miles in just eighteen days. On 27 April he defeated Jean Victor Moreau at the Battle of Cassano. Soon after Suvorov wrote to a Russian diplomat "The Adda is a Rubicon, and we crossed it over the bodies of our enemies." On 29 April he entered Milan. Two weeks later he moved on to Turin, having defeated Moreau yet again at Marengo. From Naples, Marshall MacDonald moved north to assist Moreau in June. Trapped between two armies, Suvorov took the bold decision to concentrate his whole force against MacDonald, beating the French at the Trebbia River, close to the spot of Hannibal's great victory in 218BC. Marching back to the north, the indomitable soldier chased the whole French Army of Italy back towards the Riviera, taking the powerful fortress of Mantua on 28 July. Moreau was relieved of command, to be replaced by Joubert. Pushing through the Bochetta Pass, Joubert was defeated and killed in battle with Suvorov at Novi to the north of Genoa. Years later when Moreau, who was also present at Novi, was asked about Suvorov, he replied "What can you say of a general so resolute to a superhuman degree, and who would perish himself and let his army perish to the last man rather than retreat a single pace."

As so often, the successful soldier was defeated not in battle, but by the intrigues of politicians. The Austrians and British, made distrustful by the success of the Russians in Italy, frustrated Suvorov's plan for an advance into France. Instead the emphasis switched to the campaign in the Low Countries. Despite all of his protests, Suvorov was ordered by the Tsar to transfer his troops to Switzerland, where they came under the command of the incompetent Alexander Korsakov, who was defeated by Andre Massena at the Second Battle of Zurich. Massena, with 80,000 men at his disposal, then advanced on Suvorov's remaining force of 18,000 regulars and 5000 Cossacks. Suvorov could either retreat or be destroyed.

Avoiding Massena, the Russian commander withdrew on 6 October through the Panixer Pass, and then upwards into the 9,000 foot mountains of the Bundler Oberland, by then deep in snow. Massena was convinced that he would be trapped there and forced to surrender. Desperately ill-equipped and short of supplies, Suvorov neverthless pushed on, finally reaching Chur on the Rhine with the bulk of his army intact. As he watched his ragged and starving soldiers march into camp the old soldier declared that "The Russian eagles outflew the Roman eagles." The French in astonishment declared him to be the Russian Hannibal. It was as a consequence of this campaign that he wrote Rules for the Conduct of Military Actions in the Mountains. Although he was promoted to the rank of generalissimo, the forth such in all of Russian history, he was recalled to St. Petersburg by the jealous Paul, and stripped of his command and rank. He died in May 1800, never having fulfilled his last great ambition-to meet Bonaparte in the field. What a fight that would have been! Clio the Muse 02:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Crime in international water

Hello. I recently went on a cruise and this question passed my mind: If a person commits a crime in international waters, which government, if any, prosecutes him? What if it were a crime under the law of some countries but not of others? Also, if someone commits a crime against someone else, and they both live in different countries, where would the lawsuit take place? Thanks!--El aprendelenguas 13:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The country of registry of the vessel or aircraft involved has jurisdiction (although many countries' legal systems assert a "long arm" jurisdiction when their citizens are abroad). If two vessels of different nationalities are involved then both countries will claim jurisdiction, and their respective legal systems will have to come to some arrangement. In practice law enforcement personnel are rarely if ever present, even on large cruise ships, and the captain has responsibility for safety and security. On cruise ships the private security staff of the ship are responsible (legally as deputies of the captain) for some limited police functions. Recently large US-based cruise lines (whose vessels are nevertheless, like a lot of shipping, registered in countries with very limited regulation) have faced criticism that the security staff haven't done an adequate job when faced with allegations of serious crimes at sea. One example is this story from The Independent. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 14:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

You might want to note Art 1.8 of the US Constitution, which gives Congress the authority to legislate over such crimes on the "high seas" - that is, I believe, international waters.martianlostinspace 20:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know that an internal US document has any weight in International Law. I am not aware the the US Constitution applies anywhere outside the US. It may, however, permit the American authorities to take appropriate action where International Law also permits. Bielle 23:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The United States government claims jurisdiction over its citizens, no matter where they are. Thus, if you go to Cambodia to have sex with children, you can be prosecuted in the U.S. as well as Cambodia. This has nothing to do with international law. -- Mwalcoff 04:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the same applies under Australian law, although IANAL. Before David Hicks' recent conviction and return to Australia to serve out his time in prison here, John Howard consistently refused to intervene and have him released from Guantanamo (as Tony Blair did for the UK citizens in detention there), on the grounds that the acts he was then alleged to have committed in Afghanistan were not crimes under Australian law at the time they were alleged to have been committed (they have since become crimes). Presumably, had they been crimes at the time, Australia could have prosecuted him. Because they weren't, they allowed him to become subject to American justice and he languished in Guantanamo without charge for 5 years. -- JackofOz 05:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, you are also subject to the laws of wherever you are, even if what you're doing is allowed in your home country. -- Mwalcoff 05:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but where he was, was Afghanistan. To my knowledge, Afghanistan has never shown any interest in prosecuting Hicks. -- JackofOz 05:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Law of Attraction

After watching The_Secret_(2006_film), I tried using the Law_of_Attraction_(New_Thought) to think positive thoughts about beautiful women who walk past past my house to come in uninvited and have sex with me.

But after four days, I had zero success. I want to know if I should persists with my positive thoughts. Show I have myself horny when I project positive thoughts to activate the Laws of Attraction? Can anyone who have made this work share some of their secret techniques with me. Thank you.

PS. I have been practising very hard using these principles.

1. Know what one wants and ask the universe for it.
2. Feel and behave as if the object of one's desire is on its way.
3. Be open to receiving it.

210.49.121.191 14:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The Universe is pretty experienced, having been in existence for a few billion years or so now, and it is quite adept at distinguishing sincere and dilligent application of its Laws from mere pretense. If your desires have not yet become manifest, you may have to take some practical steps to increase the probability of your scenario, such as fighting to change legislation, cultural norms, biological instinct, and all the other factors that generally dissuade human beings from walking into stranger's houses uninvited (for any reason at all, let alone the purpose you've described here).

Given that the most common scenario for random home entry by strangers usually entails the risk of violence, you might also get more than you bargained for if the Universe does indeed fulfill your request. The beautiful woman may finish the deed, slit your throat and then walk off with your kidneys, along with your prized comic book collection. Perhaps it's better if you ask the universe for a girlfriend. dr.ef.tymac 15:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Infact it may be even better to ask the universe to help you become more attractive and charmimg. Then go out and practice being friendly with women. 144.160.98.31 19:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm amazed to hear it did not work for you. I never had such problems. Is it possible you have an unconscious skeptical attitude? That is known to interfere with the workings of the Law.  --Lambiam^Talk 22:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

To be quite honest, the reason why it didn't work is because a very attractive woman friend of mine (whose name I refuse to disclose, out of respect for her privacy) has been sitting in her own house for the last few days, earnestly petitioning the Universe to prevent you from attaining your request. Perhaps if you talked with her you would have better luck. MelancholyDanish 22:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)MelancholyDanish

"I don't pretend to understand the universe; it's a great deal bigger than I am. People ought to be modester." -- Thomas Carlyle One wonders if the problem isn't that another guy across the street or down the road is concentrating even harder and so pulling the young ladies, who generally are no doubt open to being target practice, away? Utgard Loki 15:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the Carlyle ref. Since this is about laws of attraction, this allows me the neat segue into Samuel Butler's comment on Carlyle and his wife: "It was very good of God to let Carlyle and Mrs Carlyle marry one another and so make only two people miserable instead of four." . -- JackofOz 22:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Reading Carlyle's The French Revolution certainly made me miserable! Hitler enjoyed his wordy fairy-tales, though. Clio the Muse 00:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, hush, you two. Sartor Resartus covers a multitude of fascistic hero worship, Great Man theorizing, and other sins. The guy who did Sartor Resartus and the wonderfully sardonic comments on the old Romantics is worth knowing. The guy who thought that towering people led history is needful of pity. (And, for that matter, Arnold's praise of the machine isn't far from D'Nunzio's "futurist fascism," and Ruskin was doing something odd, too. If anyone could understand Walter Pater, it would probably show some scary things, too.) Geogre 01:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Well Clio, I don't think Hitler enjoying it is a reason not to, I am sure you have better reasons than that! People also use that argument against Nietzsche and Wagner. However I trust your judgement on the book, perhaps Edmund Burke is a better discussion of the French revolution? More on topic, it doesn't work because 'The Secret' is that the people who made the film are making money out of idiots. I would love to repeatedly punch them and watch them try to think positively to stop me. Cyta 07:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear 210,

These women are clearly lesbians. Just look, they can resist the combined charms of both you and the universe, when either alone should be sufficient. I can only assume you didn't leave your real name for fear of outing them. 203.221.127.1 20:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

PRIMARY source of alleged quote

Can anyone please give the PRIMARY source of the following alleged quote by Yitzchak Gruenbaum during the Second World War: "One cow in Palestine is worth more than all the Jews in Poland." Thank you.Simonschaim 15:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

In the first place, it's not an alleged quote. --Wetman 17:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

No primary source, but many of the totally unconfirmed internet pages that carry this quote attribute it to a speech by Yitzhak Greenbaum (that seems to be the most common spelling) in Tel Aviv on February 18, 1943, possibly to the Zionist Executive Council. --mglg_(talk) 20:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a very similar quote spoken by a character on page 355 of the 1943 Muir translation of Sholem Asch's Three Cities, originally published in 1929-1931:
"But I tell you that, if a single cow in Palestine has a calf, it's an important event for the whole Jewish nation. Every calf in Palestine is worth more for the preservation of the Jews than scores of Jews in the Dispersion."
So this is something someone said in a novel published many years before 1943, before Hitler even came to power. I suppose it's possible Greenbaum was quoting from the book, though.
(I pieced the quote together using Google Book Search, the book is under Limited Preview Snippet View there.) -- Cam 20:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Good work Cam, that's better than I managed with Google Books (hadn't thought of searching for "single cow"). It's a funny coincidence that the Gruenbaum quote is also attributed to 1943; it's still possible he said it then, but I don't see a good source yet. It's also possible this might have been a common expression among early Zionists even before Asch's novel.--Pharos 20:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think a single cow should be having a calf. That should be reserved for married cows. Gzuckier 15:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Can two cows marry? Surely same-sex marriages are illegal for bovines. DuncanHill 15:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

How utterly discriminatory! Haven't you heard of lesbovine marriages? They're quite common these days. -- JackofOz 22:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Surely, (or Jack, if you prefer) you meant "udderly", didn't you? Bielle 23:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

He he, good one, Bielle. Some of my friends call me Surely, but I just ignore them.  :) -- JackofOz 04:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Government of Charles II

In what way did the Cabal ministry differ from that of Clarendon? Tower Raven 20:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

That they are called different things? Oh sorry, isn't that what your teacher wants for your homework? --ColinFine 22:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Do not bite the newcomers springs to mind Colin.DuncanHill 22:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

There are two areas of difference that you should focus on: leadership and religious policy. The fall of Clarendon in 1667 brought an end to a single decisive voice in government, and an end to the orthodox policy in religion, pursued since the Restoration in 1660, which found particular expression in the so-called Clarendon Code. The Cabal Ministry, in contrast, had no single leader and no uniform idea in matters of religion. Arlington, the State Secretary, enjoyed as much power in England as Lauderdale did in Scotland, though he was never to have the same kind of coercive influence formerly possessed by Clarendon. There was also a major fault line in the ministry from the very beginning, with Arlington and Clifford, falling on one side, and Buckingham, Ashley and Lauderdale on the other. The Clarendon ministry had been Anglican and conservative; the Cabal was anything but. Lauderdale was an old Covenanter. Arlington and Clifford had Catholic sympathies, while Buckingham and Ashley had links with the Protestant dissenters. The ministry saw the temporary alleviation of the harsh policy hitherto pursued against Catholic and Protestant dissenters in both England and Scotland. The chief weakness of the Cabal was that it had little in the way of active support in Parliament, which meant that trouble was not long in coming, especially over the Declaration of Indulgence in 1672. Clio the Muse 00:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Skepticism

Since my previous questions to the RefDesk have resulted in useful addition(s) to articles Fact, and Gettier problem, I am now asking for assistance with another question — for the article Fact, some reference to Skepticism is likely to be made. Which current WP articles have the best treatment(s) of Skepticism, appropriate to philosophical discussion? (That is, religious skepticism is a side-issue for this purpose.) Any general references, available at a library, would also be useful to me. Thanks to all for the previous help, and thanks in advance for considering this question, answers to which I hope to convert into some more helpful additions to "Fact", at least,Newbyguesses - Talk 22:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

You'll find Descartes was pretty methodological in his methods of doubt. Llamabr 01:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

You should also refer to the page on David Hume and the more general one on Philosophical skepticism. On Hume specifically, I would recommend that you have a look at his magnum opus, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, either the Wikipedia page or, better still, the book itself, which is available in any number of editions. Clio the Muse 02:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Or Wikisource. Splintercellguy 07:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

My thanks, for this useful information, to these helpful contributors. And much thanks to all those who assist at the Reference Desk,Newbyguesses - Talk 22:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, don't forget the Stanford Encyclopedia of Phlosophy, which our article links to. Also most of our philosophy articles seem to link to Stanford Encyc. articles. If Wikipedia ever went kaput, I would end up there all the time. 203.221.127.1 20:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)