Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 December 21

= December 21 =

Latin as university language
When, why and how did people stopped using Latin at universities? If all cultivated people could speak Latin at a certain time, what was the point of turning around and starting using their own languages? OsmanRF34 (talk) 11:20, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Which universities? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:26, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * From university: "university culture developed differently in northern Europe than it did in the south, although the northern (primarily Germany, France and Great Britain) and southern universities (primarily Italy) did have many elements in common. Latin was the language of the university, used for all texts, lectures, disputations and examinations. " OsmanRF34 (talk) 11:43, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * All cultivated people didn't speak Latin. In England, boys went to grammar schools to learn Latin to enter universities or become a priest or monk. Elizabeth I had a secret Bible in English which was heretical. Sleigh (talk) 11:38, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Heretical to the Anglican church, or just to the Roman Catholic? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:41, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It would have been during the Catholic restoration in the reign of Queen Mary I of England. After Mary's death, Queen Elizabeth sponsored the printing of the Geneva Bible in London. Alansplodge (talk) 12:28, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * From the article you linked above: "With the foundation of the ancient universities from the late 12th century, grammar schools became the entry point to a liberal arts education, with Latin seen as the foundation of the trivium." Indeed, it seems to confirm my point, that being educated meant you had to learn Latin. Hence, people at universities could communicate in Latin. I was not claiming they spoke it at home. OsmanRF34 (talk) 11:43, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Is there a citation for that statement, or is it just an editor's opinion? Also, Latin was used to share information across countries with different languages. English (which is partly Latin filtered through French) has taken over that role. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:53, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If there is no citation, you could add the 'citation needed' tag. But it seems as a pretty unremarkable statement. And English as a kinda lingua franca is a relatively recent development. It is not as if Latin was substituted for English. OsmanRF34 (talk) 11:57, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The abandondement of Latin as the main language at universities in Europe (for lectures, disputes and theses) occurred gradually throughout the 18th and 19th centuries, as it became seen as antiquated and part of the old scholastic way of learning, as opposed to the new scientific way, combined with the rise of nationalism and newfound interest in the history and care for the native languages of each country. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:02, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I found some interesting although brief information here. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:43, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Here's a reference... Clackson, James (2011) A Companion to the Latin Language, Wiley-Blackwell, ISBN 978-1405186056 (Chapter 18) says "This widespread use of Latin as the language of scholarship began to decline in many areas of Europe from the early eighteenth century onwards, as French, English and German in particular gained greater ground in their respective countries, inspired through the Enlightenment with a desire to present new learning more intelligibly to a broader audience." Alansplodge (talk) 12:54, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * See also New Latin. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 15:29, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Cairo Geniza question
I read somewhere that divorce in the Islamic-ruled Mediterranean was so common that the very first Cairo Geniza document discovered was a writ of divorce. However, I can't seem to find it in my books. It may have something to do with the chest of Cairo Geniza papers that S.D. Goitein found. Does this sound familiar to anyone or am I just thinking of something else? --Ghostexorcist (talk) 12:09, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't know how common divorce was, but the Cairo Genizah was a collection of several thousand documents, 'genizah' being a sacred storeroom for religious texts that could not be destroyed. So, it makes no sense to say the "very first Cairo Geniza document discovered." On the other hand, the Cairo Genizah specifically was the storeroom of many everyday documents, so it won't be a surprise to find many divorce deeds among them. OsmanRF34 (talk) 12:47, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There's academic research using the Geniza documents to investigate how often non-Muslims had recourse to the Muslim courts. They had their own courts, but were permitted to take out cases in the Islamic courts. It seems that both Jews and Christians did, and one of the purposes was for divorce. There were other reasons, such as business disputes. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:24, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think I confused the writ of divorce with something else. I believe the first letter that Goitein came across was a letter from David to his brother Maimonides. Never mind. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 19:47, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Rothschild
In the Wikipedia article on Benjamin Disraeli there is a picture of four men with this caption: "Clockwise from top left: Russell, Rothschild, Manners and Granby." I am wondering if somebody will help me with the identification. I would like to know approximately (1) the age of Rothschild when this portrait was made, (2) his first name and perhaps (3) the year this picture was taken (or portrait drawn). I am also curious if it was a drawn portrait or a daguerreotype. Thanks, AboutFace 22 (talk) 23:23, 21 December 2013 (UTC)AboutFace_22


 * If you click on the picture, the source says "Rothschild: Unsigned portrait from "Baron Rothschild", Illustrated London News 31 July 1847, [when he would have been 37] p. 76". Perhaps someone else can supply more information.--Shantavira|feed me 17:02, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The particular Rothschild depicted is Lionel de Rothschild (1808 - 1897), who, if the 1847 date is accurate, would have been 39 at the date of the photograph engraving. Tevildo (talk) 17:58, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * ... and it seems he wasn't a baron of the UK but of Austria, inheriting from his father, Nathan Mayer Rothschild. His son was the first Jewish person to be allowed into the House of Lords. I'll correct the link in the image legend. Thincat (talk) 22:25, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, he was a baron of Austria; a royal licence 16 June 1838 allowed him, and any other heirs male of the body of the grantees of the Austrian barony (granted his father and uncles in 1822) to use this title in Britain. - Nunh-huh 23:15, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much guys, your erudition is overwhelming!!! AboutFace 22 (talk) 23:21, 21 December 2013 (UTC)AboutFace_22

Otto of Wittelsbach
Why did Otto IV, Count of Wittelsbach (see de:Otto V. von Scheyern) have the grown sons named Otto: Otto I Wittelsbach, Duke of Bavaria and Otto VII, Count Palatine of Bavaria? It is extremely unusual to name sons by the same name if those sons both reached adulthood and had no differentiating middle name.--The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 16:44, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * See House of Reuss and George Foreman and have your mind blown. -- Jayron  32  20:56, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You've left out Michael Jackson's children; "Prince" Michael, Paris-Michael, and Prince "Pillow" Michael. μηδείς (talk) 02:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * And apparently Otto I Wittelsbach carried on the tradition and named two of his daughters Heilika I (b. 1171) married in 1184 to Hallgrave Dietrich of Wasserburg, and Heilika II (1176 - 1214). So here too, the older one was alive when the younger one was born, and it wasn't a case of naming a newborn after an already-deceased older sibling, as was common practice in many parts of Europe while infant and child mortality was high. ---Sluzzelin talk  22:30, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It's also much too early, historically, for there to have been middle names to differentiate by. - Nunh-huh 00:11, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily...there were the twin counts of Barcelona, Ramon Berenguer II and Berenguer Ramon II. As for why these two were both named Otto, maybe Otto IV already knew they would inherit different places, so one would be Otto of X and the other would be Otto of Y. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:19, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well the Reuss are a rare case because it was a family tradition to name all sons Heinrich. On the father's death there was only the family lands in Scheyern and the title of Count palatine of Bavaria, subordinate to the Duke of Bavaria, at that time Henry the Lion, which were all inherited by the older Otto until he was randomly invested as Duke of Bavaria after Henry the Lion's defeat against the Holy Roman Emperor. Then did the older Otto give the lesser title of Count palatine of Bavaria to the younger Otto.--The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 01:38, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * In German tradition, there was and is no concept of a differentiating middle name. Whereas I would be reluctant to believe the family reconstructions of medieval times (often done by later genealogists at will), I have no problem at all with several children of one family bearing the same name. This happened in ruling and non-ruling families. In ruling families it may have helped to demonstrate the legal succession. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 13:08, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

All the Heinrichs in the Reuss family (repost)
Did the male members of the House of Reuss refer to their father, brothers, uncles, male cousins, children and etc by Heinrich follow by their numerals or were pet names used like in the Russian Imperial family? I assume it is allow to repost old unanswered questions. --The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 03:04, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This question has been combined with the previous, still-active thread. μηδείς (talk) 03:18, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Uh. Not very relevant to this other question. One editor's answer only reminded me of it. --The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 03:45, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The numerals were used officially e.g. on coins, patents and obituaries. My guess: de:Heinrich XXIV. (Reuß-Köstritz) had eight sons named Heinrich. I expect a letter from him to his relatives announcing the death of one of his sons with the following style: Address: "To ... count Heinrich VI of Reuss in ...". Salutation: "Dear cousin (no name)". Text: "...our beloved son Heinrich VIII count of Reuss passed away...". --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 14:23, 24 December 2013 (UTC)