Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 September 3

= September 3 =

Renaissance Etiquette
Having gotten part way through a novel set during the 16th century, I now find I don't know enough about things worked in the higher levels of society. Particularly, I need some idea of how my main character could gain admittance to the large country manor of a friend, or perhaps an aquaintance, when a number of other people are already there, and subsequently be invited to join a large meal that evening, of how people will act, the way things have to be done, and such like. So far he has just ridden a horse up to the edge of the estate, as yet unannounced, and I have little idea how to proceed from there.

I am hoping someone here can help out, or perhaps suggest some way I can find such details out for myself, given that my local library doesn't seem to have anything of much use.

88.108.91.177 (talk) 12:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * My inclination would be to consult fictional literature from that time. To obtain copies, you may need to request an interlibrary loan or photocopy them at a university library with open access.  This source suggests writers to consult on social manners in Renaissance Italy.  The obvious writer to consult for Renaissance England would be Shakespeare, though Marlowe and others would also have useful pointers.  You might also take a look at The Civilizing Process by Elias.  If you don't want to do all that research, my own nonexpert guess, from reading and watching Shakespeare myself, would be that you could just have your character ride up to a point where the estate's host has a couple of watchmen posted.  They stop your character and ask him his business.  They ask him to wait while one of them informs the host of your character's arrival and asks the host whether he wishes to receive your character.  Assuming you want the host to agree to receive your character, the host directs his watchman to welcome your character and escort him to himself (the host).  Whereupon, courtly greetings and invitations to the evening meal are offered.  Marco polo (talk) 12:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * One classic from the period is The Book of the Courtier by Baldassare Castiglione, which contains a lot of instructions and advice on how to get ahead in the service of rulers of the Italian cities. AnonMoos (talk) 13:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And the autobiography of Benvenuto Cellini to see how this was done by someone with no regard for manners :) Adam Bishop (talk) 02:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

When they get there, would the food be already waiting on the table, or would it have been brought in for them?88.108.149.27 (talk) 16:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Hindus in BNP
If BNP (Bangladesh Nationalist Party?) are anti-Hindus, then do they have joint-secretary general who is a Hindu, whose name is Goeshwar Chandra Ray? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.54.2 (talk) 15:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe you should ask him why he is a member of such a party. You might also tell us where you read that he was the secretary-general, as Google can find no trace of him, nor of any official called a "secretary-general" in the BNP.
 * Of course part of the answer may be that the BNP is not explicitly anti-Hindu - i.e. they do not advocate the forced conversion of Hindus, or as far as I know the repatriation of Hindus. They do advocate restrictions on immigration, although I'm not clear if they would explicitly restrict immigration based on race, or religion, or country of origin. Whatever, maybe Goeshwar considers himself British enough to support the party; or maybe he agrees with its other platforms strongly enough to any other reservations he has. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe the OP was referring to Goyeshwar Chandra Roy, joint secretary general of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party. We have him listed as a 'prominent Hindu' in Bangladesh.  Some of our articles refer to the BNP as a mainstream centre-right party, others use language such as 'increasingly pro-Islamic'.  All successful political parties are broad coalitions, and he may well not agree with all of its policies, simply finding that they are more in tune with his beliefs than any other party available.  A person who agrees with 90% of a party's platform would need to have the remaining 10% as a fundamental disagreement in order to leave/not join them --Saalstin (talk) 15:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, now I feel like an idiot. Although it does serve as a reminder to people to not use initialisms. And not to assume that initialisms refer to the ones they think. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, DJ. I immediately thought of the British Nationalist Party, too. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 23:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, the Bharatiya Janata Party has a few prominent Muslim figures, in spite of essentially being a front for communal, violently anti-Muslim groups. Politics make strange bedfellows. --Soman (talk) 15:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

On to the next absurd generalization: that the BNP is “anti-Hindu,” as opposed to (say), a mainstream right-of-center party favoring nationalism and opposed to communism and socialism. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

BNP and Awami League
Is there website where they stats for which political party gets the most support from Hindus, Christians and Buddhists? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.54.2 (talk) 15:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but companies like MORI (http://www.ipsos-mori.com/) are likely to carry that sort of data if it's available. Basically they are a major Opinion poll provider in the Uk. It won't be 'voting' habits, but it will be likely a (reasonably) good indicator of these sorts of things. ny156uk (talk) 20:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that MORI have done any polling in Bangladesh. Apparently the International Republican Institute have; I don't know how reliable their work is, but there are some publications linked from their website which might contain relevant information. Warofdreams talk 02:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Dates for the Tower of Babel/ Nimrod
I am studying the Tower of Babel and I was wondering if there are any speculated dates for this event or for Nimrod, Noah's grandson. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimrod and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_of_babel. Thank you! 15:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)15:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisard breath (talk • contribs)


 * Just looking at the two articles you have linked, the suggested date s for Nimrod are about 163 - 94 BCE, and for the likely origin of the likely tower as is 660 BCE. Did the tower(s) last more than 500 years ?  A Biblical scholar may be along soon to provide more information if there is any. // BL \\ (talk) 15:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't know where you get 163 BC from, since all indications from the Bible are that he belonged to the era of the Biblical Patriarchs, not the Seleucid/Maccabee period (a thousand or more years later!).  The Tower of Babel incident is also firmly placed in the era of the Patriarchs according to the internal Biblical chronology, though some details may be based on structures built nearer to the time when the Book of Genesis received its final significant editing (late pre-exilic Judah). AnonMoos (talk) 16:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)'
 * The date came from the following quotation lifted directly from the article Nimrod which I misread:
 * An early Arabic work known as Kitab al-Magall or the Book of Rolls (part of Clementine literature) states that Nimrod built the towns of Hadâniûn, Ellasar, Seleucia, Ctesiphon, Rûhîn, Atrapatene, Telalôn, and others, that he began his reign as king over earth when Reu was 163, and that he reigned for 69 years, building Nisibis, Raha (Edessa) and Harran when Peleg was 50.


 * I am striking much of my first answer. Thanks for the catch, AnonMoos. // BL \\ (talk) 16:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

LB -- Since the Tower of Babel narrative in the Bible has a rather legendary tone, and an apparent etiological purpose, and there's no external historical evidence that such things ever took place, many would say that the question of the date of the Tower of Babel is somewhat meaningless. However, one can still examine clues as to when the Bible itself says that it happened. While the Bible contains few absolute dates, there is an overall coherent relative timeline of which events happened before or after which other events, and which individuals lived before or after which other individuals. Within this relative sequence, the Tower of Babel is clearly placed in the Patriarchal period (as mentioned), after Noah and before Moses. If you add up the list of the lengths of the reigns of the various kings etc., along with the statement in 1 Kings 6:1 that Solomon's building of the temple came 480 years after the Exodus (or according to some versions 440 years), etc. etc., then it's pretty clear that according to the Bible the date of the Tower of Babel must have been substantially before 1000 B.C. However, to attempt any exact year precision, in the style of Archbishop Ussher, would be fairly pointless... AnonMoos (talk) 16:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I am fairly certain that many people who study this thing seriously, probably consider the Tower of Babel to be a Ziggurat of some sort. The Great Ziggurat of Ur is still in good condition, some 4100 years after it was first built.  Which Ziggurat the writers of Genesis had in mind, or whether the story was meant to be entirely allegorical is likely unknown, but given the location and dating of the Genesis narative, it is quite likely that when the writers had a picture of the Tower of Babel in mind, they had in mind a Ziggurat.  -- Jayron  32  20:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Babel is simply the name used in the Hebrew Bible for the city of Babylon. The seven-tiered ziggurat of Marduk at Babylon was Etemenanki. The "Temple of the Foundation of Heaven and Earth" was erected long before Babylon became familiar to Hebrews. The "confusion of tongues" is only word-play on a false etymology of ''Babel'.'--Wetman (talk) 23:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Familiar Man
Can anyone do me a wee solid and tell me who this is. Cookies for an answer :) x

http://img412.imageshack.us/i/30929211.jpg/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.252.10 (talk) 17:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Javier Solana and | here?. // BL \\ (talk) 17:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Your a saint :). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.252.10 (talk) 17:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * St. Bielle? Has a nice ring to it. ;-) // BL \\ (talk) 17:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * So, where's my cookie? // BL \\ (talk) 19:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Wee solid?
I get the sense of this expression - a favour. But where did it come from and what does the "solid" refer to? -- JackofOz (talk) 20:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * All that I can find out: The phrase is used in Adrian McKinty´s novel "The Bloomsday Dead" in the same sense of "do me a favour".  Maybe some Irish folks know more?  --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It sounds scots to me (Scots language ??). I've never heard it before.83.100.250.79 (talk) 22:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * PS: As the guy also lived in Harlem and Denver, it may be a strange multi ethnic USian idiom. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As a native-born USian, I can confirm that solid is a fairly widespread slang term here meaning something like "committed". It comes from expressions like "a solid agreement", "solid friends", "solid as a rock" and so on, implying a firm, solid bond.  So, "We solid?" means something like "Are we committed to each other?" or maybe "Are we in firm agreement".  In the context of a romantic relationship "We solid" (without the question mark) is an expression of commitment and confidence in the durability of the relationship.  The omission of the copula suggests that it originated in an African American speech environment, but I think this expression has spread with hiphop to working class males (of a certain stylistic bent) of every ethnic group.  Marco polo (talk) 00:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the op was saying the Scottish "wee" as in "little", not "we" as in me and you. I always took solid to mean "solid favour" like "big favour" so really can you do me a wee solid means can you do me a little big favour. Vespine (talk) 04:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If we are really talking about wee rather than we, then this is definitely not an Americanism, as wee is an alien form in the United States, understood by most but never used except for comic effect. Also, I've never heard of solid meaning "big favour". Apart from the spelling, I don't think the word is used that way in the United States.   Marco polo (talk) 15:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Have no idea as to the origin of the phrase, but "solid" in this meaning occurs in The Incredibles movie (the scene where the mother is phoning her old friend to get a jet plane). AnonMoos (talk) 02:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree with Marco polo about the solid=favor issue. I've heard the phrase "Do me a solid", meaning "Do me a favor", in various television shows or movies from the 70s.  It was most often said by a black male character.  And yes, I'm a USian.  As for the spelling of "wee", I'd need more context to offer a suggestion.  Dismas |(talk) 03:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Isn't the context fairly obvious? Look at the question section previous to this one. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 14:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's why I asked the question in the first place. It was originally a sub-question to that question, but someone in their wisdom made it a new header.  I always knew what "wee" meant - little.  I'm still no wiser about why "solid" was chosen to mean "favour".  --  JackofOz (talk) 21:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Use of the phrase "United Kingdom"
When did the phrase "United Kingdom" or "UK" become current as an informal name for the northwest European state in question? Compared to the synecdochic "(Great) Britain", I would think it would have been particularly apt before 1922, when the state comprised the whole of Britain and Ireland, but I've found that contemporary maps tended to display the country as "British Isles" or "Great Britain and Ireland", and never as "United Kingdom" as it's typically found on maps today. --140.232.11.16 (talk) 18:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course United Kingdom is short for "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", and the phrase is used on official documents such as passports. This is different from Britain (England, Scotland, and Wales) or The British Isles (England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland and the Channel Islands). -- Q Chris (talk) 19:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, I know all that. But I'm talking about the use of "United Kingdom", without anything following, to refer to the country (analogous to the use of "United States" to refer to the United States of America). For example, on old maps like this one and this one, they used "British Isles" as a political descriptor where nowadays they would use "United Kingdom". --140.232.11.16 (talk) 19:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There was a time when ALL of the British Isles were ruled directly from Westminster, during the time when the state was called United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, from 1801-1927. During that time, the phrase "British Isles", to describe GB + Ireland (+ Mann?), also described the full (non-colonial) possessions of the British crown, so the state was roughly equivalent to the British Isles.  After the Irish independece movement of the 1910's-1920's came to full fruition, and the Republic of Ireland became a fully sovereign state of its own right, the "UK" and "British Isles" no longer were synonymous.  -- Jayron  32  20:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * According to our article Terminology of the British Isles, "The Partition of Ireland took place in 1922, but the consequent change in the official title of the UK was only made by Act of Parliament five years later." — Michael J  21:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The details are discussed at length in History of the United Kingdom. Basically, the United Kingdom of Great Britain formed in 1707 from the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland. (Two kingdoms uniting, both of which are on the island of Great Britain, hence the name.) The two had been in personal union since 1603 when James VI of Scotland inherited the English crown to become James I of England. They operated quasi-independently until the Treaty of Union made the personal union a political union. Territory has since been added and subtracted, changing what comes after the "United Kingdom" bit, but that's the ultimate source of the "UK" -- 128.104.112.102 (talk) 21:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * All of which does not actually answer the OPs question... --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not an answer, but nothing above is either, so I'll offer that the phrase "United Kingdom" appears 23 times in this abridged edition (the full set is not searchable) of Winston Churchill's 1948 WWII history; "Britain" appears 270 times. In his A History of the English-Speaking Peoples (1914), it's "Britain" 350, "United Kingdom" 28.  In his 1900 book London to Ladysmith via Pretoria, "United Kingdom" appears not at all, and "Britain" appears 7 times.  So my guess is, some time between 1900 and 1948.  --Sean 00:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That might be when it became more common than "Britain", but it became a current informal name soon after 1707 - see, for instance, this work of 1719, which uses "United Kingdom" in several places. [[User:Warofdreams|Warofdreams] talk 02:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The question is really a two-parter. It's been called the United Kingdom for quite awhile, but calling it simply "UK" seems to me, anecdotally, to be a much more recent phenomenon. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 03:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't locate the exact passage now, but I seem to recall that in Brian Aldiss's more or less autobiographical Horatio Stubbs trilogy, in the aftermath of a somewhat anticlimactic victory, the protagonist laments how what used to be "Britain" is now being renamed "the UK". So there we have one piece of anecdotal evidence once removed, possibly subject to the recency illusion. But it lends some support to the notion that "the UK" was increasingly favoured post-WWII, perhaps as a way of distracting attention from the fact that victory could not stave off the end of the British Empire.--Rallette (talk) 08:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm fairly certain "Britain" was a more common usage than "the UK" when I was growing up in the 1970s, although I grew up in the United States, so I can't be sure. I vaguely recall the first time I heard the term "the UK" and having to figure out what it meant.  I think it gained ascendancy in the spoken language during the 1980s in the United Kingdom and maybe around 2000 over here.  Marco polo (talk) 14:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I can recall hearing that "England" was often used (Gladstone's gravestone says "Prime Minister of England") and it was only after Scots began to complain that newspapers etc. changed to "Britain".


 * Referring to the whole of Great Britain (the island or the former kingdom) or the UK as "England" was always an egregious error, one that many people still make. --  JackofOz (talk) 21:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)