Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 January 14

= January 14 =

What was her full name and the year of death?
What was the full name of Madame de Gourbillon, and the year of her birth and death? Does any one know? Thank you. --Aciram (talk) 02:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't find her name at birth, but her married name was Marguerite de Gourbillon and her dates are 1737-1817 (source: this page and some other Googling). --Cam (talk) 04:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. By google of "Marguerite de Gourbillon" I have managed to find her full name! As well as her birth year. However, her death year needs better references: from a book, not a forum. Perhaps it can be added, but it must still be given a better reference - is there one? --Aciram (talk) 15:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see that is taken care of as well now. Then it is settled! Of course, one must also ad the year when she was employed, which is vital to the article. --Aciram (talk) 16:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Ranking of US presidents - background?
The USPC Rankings of US presidents include "Background" as first category. But what does this mean? Education, especially higher education? If not: Is there a ranking of US presidents by academic degrees / certifications...? --KnightMove (talk) 06:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The table was recently added to our article but is a mistake which I've partially corrected. Those are Siena College rankings not USPC ones. USPC only includes 5 categories. The meaning of background is described by Siena College and  as 'family, education and experience', you'd need to look at what they published for more detail although since it was a survey of scholars opinions, it may not have had any more details then that. Nil Einne (talk) 12:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Looking for information about a person in the 17th century
I am trying to find background information about a person called Laurence Clarke, a 17th century engraver who made prints by such artists as Hogarth. I have searched the web using Google and Yahoo with no luck. Anyone know anything about him?

Hugh Dent — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.137.60.1 (talk) 13:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * As Hogarth was born in 1697, and was presumably still in short trousers (or the equivalent) at the end of the 17th century, I rather think you mean the 18th century. I have just used Ancestry.co.uk to check the Register of Duties Paid for Apprentices' Indentures (1710-1811), Freedom of the City of London Admission Papers, and Articles of Clerkship, and have not come up with a single Laurence Clarke. Do you know where he worked, and what was the earliest date for one of his engravings that you're aware of? AlexTiefling (talk) 14:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I checked Tooley's and a couple of other sources, I've only been able to find one Laurence Clark from that time period and the only information I can find on them is that they wrote a book called A Compleat history of the Holy Bible in 1737. For what it's worth, that's the only name with that spelling or any variant (i.e. Lawrence instead of Laurence, Clark instead of Clarke) in CERL, and it's the only VIAF heading anywhere close to that time period. eldamorie (talk) 14:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth (which certainly isn't much...) Here's the WorldCat Identities link for the one guy with that name I was able to find, but it doesn't seem likely that they are the same person: . eldamorie (talk) 14:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * A compleat exposition of the Book of Common-Prayer: and administration of Lords's Supper according to the use of the Church of England compiled by Laurence Clarke A.M. 1737, can be read online here. A.M. apparently stands for Master of Arts.  Alansplodge (talk) 15:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note that William Hogarth served an apprenticeship as an engraver; I haven't found any references to anyone doing the job for him. Alansplodge (talk) 16:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There are no entries in Benezit or Bryan's dictionary of engravers, so it would appear that this printmaker probably wasn't very successful. eldamorie (talk) 17:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * What is not clear is whether this person was a printmaker or a printer. Roger (talk) 16:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

613 Commandments
According the article's list of 613 commandments, it looks like whoever has written it some serious issues with the people of Canaan, Moab, and other nations. One commandment is to destroy the nations of Canaan. Do modern-day Jews really keep these commandments? 140.254.226.247 (talk) 21:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * They aren't around anymore. When have you last met a Moabite or a Philistine? - Lindert (talk) 21:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * (ec)So, what happened to the Moabites or Philistines? Were they destroyed, or were they assimilated and became part of the greater Jewish community? 140.254.226.247 (talk) 21:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * For many of these peoples their later history is vague and unknown. They have ceased to exist as an identifiable group, but some may have assimilated into other cultures. - Lindert (talk) 21:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * So, which group of biblical people do modern-day Jews identify with? Did the biblical people's culture passed down their traditions, beliefs, and practices to their offspring? 140.254.226.247 (talk) 21:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Lindert's claim that "their later history is vague and unknown" is only partially correct. We have articles on the Moabites and Philistines, and they describe what we know about their demise.  The Moabites' territory was overrun by northern Arab tribes somewhere around the 6th century BC, but they seem to have disappeared from the historical record before this.  The Philistines were conquered by the Assyrians (a Mesopotamian empire), just like Israel itself.  Judah, the other Jewish kingdom, was eventually conquered by the neo-Babylonians (also a Mesopotamian empire).  The Philistines lost their identity as a group in the 5th century BC.  --140.180.240.178 (talk) 23:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * In any case, the vast majority of Jews treat the commandments in the same way as the vast majority of Christians treat all the commandments in the new testament. They stick to some, ignore some and follow adapted versions of some. The ones about destroying other nations are some of the less popular ones. 81.159.112.136 (talk) 21:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think there was a list of commandments in the New Testament. It's basically a series of gospels and then a series of letters. 140.254.226.247 (talk) 21:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There's a few. The Beatitudes, the Great Commandment, etc. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The Council of Jerusalem in 50 AD exempted non-Jewish converts to Christianity from much of the Mosaic law, including circumcision. See also Split of early Christianity and Judaism. Alansplodge (talk) 22:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There isn't really a list of commandments in the Old Testament either: people create lists by extracting the commandments from the longer texts. In the same way, Jesus gave many commandments in the Gospels, and the Church decided additional commandments recorded in Acts and the Epistles. Why did you think Jesus said, "If you love me, keep my commandments."? 86.140.54.211 (talk) 08:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Maimonides law #596 is the one you're referring to, "Destroy the seven Canaanite nations". This is based on Deut 20:17. It's fairly harsh: "but thou shalt utterly destroy them: the Hittite, and the Amorite, the Canaanite, and the Perizzite, the Hivite, and the Jebusite; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee" (note, the Moabites aren't listed. Moabites weren't Canaanites, they're descendants of Lot.) However, you don't need a degree in biblical analysis or even to consult Rashi to ensure that you at least read the verse in context... by reading the preceding verses. It's a command to destroy the warrior-age males of cities that don't surrender, in order to ensure that idolatory is eradicated. That's rather more limited than you thought.

Now, on your other point. Modern day Jews would not be obligated by this command, as, even if they could find some Jebusites somewhere, it's a command given to the Israelites when they entered the land of Israel, following the Exodus, not a general law for all times and all places. --Dweller (talk) 23:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You either didn't read your own link, or are fraudulently misrepresenting the source. The immediately preceding phrase reads: "Howbeit of the cities of these peoples, that the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth".  You might be referring to this earlier sentence:
 * "thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword; but the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take for a prey unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee."
 * which basically says "kill the males and enslave the women and children". Even by the standards of warfare of the time, this would have been exceptionally cruel.
 * It's interesting, since you mentioned idolatry, to examine what the 613 commandments say about idolatry:
 * To burn a city that has turned to idol worship — Deut. 13:17
 * Not to love the idolater — Deut. 13:9
 * Not to cease hating the idolater — Deut. 13:9
 * Not to save the idolater — Deut. 13:9
 * Not to say anything in the idolater's defense — Deut. 13:9
 * Not to refrain from incriminating the idolater — Deut. 13:9
 * To destroy idols and their accessories — Deut. 12:2  --140.180.240.178 (talk) 23:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Lol. You need to read more than one preceding verse to get the context. --Dweller (talk) 07:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It is a common religious strategy to claim "you're taking things out of context!", with either no explanation or a false explanation of what the context should be. Anyone is welcome to read your link and be satisfied that the commandment has not been taken out of context.  --140.180.240.178 (talk) 08:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not making apologies for the Bible having some harsh laws. The utter destruction of the Amalekites is very puzzling and difficult for us to understand. This particular law mandates the killing of all the fighting age males of a city that's refused to surrender, not the utter destruction of every city encountered, which is how it appears without reading the preceding verses. That's all. --Dweller (talk) 09:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Verse 15 clearly divides the cities into two categories. There are the distant cities, where the purpose is just to stop them worshiping idols. For those, only the adult males should be killed and only if they don't surrender. Then there are the closer cities, where the purpose is for the Jews to settle there (taking back the lands that they were given by God). For those cities, they are supposed to kill everyone so that they can live there themselves. --Tango (talk) 13:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

On the subject of the 613 commandments and idolatory, that's entirely natural. The entire story of the Jewish people, from Abraham until at least the end of the book(s) of Kings, is about rejection of, and then flirtation with idolatory. Deuteronomy is the book given as the Jews were about to leave their desert wanderings, when they were fairly isolated, and enter a land which would continue to house Canaanites. The temptations were obvious and the laws given at that time reflect this. The Ir nidachat you refer to above (Deut 13:17) for example, is one of the strictest laws in Judaism, and applies to a Jewish city. The warning was successful - it never happened.

All in all, it's very difficult judging a prehistoric society by modern standards. The Bible has a number of perplexing laws that make us raise our eyebrows, while simultaneously including hundreds of palpably just, and for its time, radical laws. We also struggle with it because for most of us, we separate our lives into elements where religion does and does not have a place and a voice, while the Bible does not see life like that.

A good example of these tensions are in some of the elements of the laws of slavery.

Tolerance of a system of slavery makes us frown.

But s/he is released after a maximum of seven years and, it seems, some insisted on remaining slaves, but were forced to leave servitude at the end of every 50 year cycle

Yet, a master could marry off their slaves, which astonishes us.

But still, a slave injured because of his/her owner's negligence is entitled to compensation, which isn't exactly how we'd comprehend a slavery system working.

So, it's very hard for us to enter the mindset of Biblical-style Judaism. It's not existed for a couple of millenia... and, as I've said, some of it hasn't existed for a few millenia longer than that, as they were laws given for one point in time only. If you're really interested in learning more about it, drop me a line at my talk page and I can point you to some reading on the subject. It's fascinating. --Dweller (talk) 09:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You call some Biblical laws "harsh", yet I wonder what you would say if any modern army were to kill every man, woman, child, and domestic animal in an enemy city. Is that "harsh", or is it a barbaric and unforgivable atrocity?  Keep in mind that since a significant number of people in modern times use the Bible as a moral guide, it is entirely appropriate to judge the Bible by modern standards.  The moral relativism that historians usually embrace is only appropriate for understanding historical societies, not for trying to apply their principles to modern times.
 * On the subject of slavery, I think people who can't comprehend why an injured slave deserves compensation is thinking of slavery in 19th century America. In Classical Greece, for example, the social norm was that a slave works alongside his master in his workshop or on his farm, doing the same type of work.  Female slaves were often treated as part of the family because they did domestic tasks and could have a close relationship with family members.  An Athenian writer (whose name I can't remember, unfortunately) laments the fact that slaves could walk on the streets, enter the agora, and do almost everything that a citizen could do.  Slavery does not always mean, and usually did not mean, that the master beats his slave to pulp and tries to make him/her cry as much as possible.  That's an overly simplistic understanding of slavery that can easily cause people to think the Bible's laws regarding slaves were especially just or unusual when they were not, even compared to contemporaries.  --140.180.240.178 (talk) 10:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Average yearly income of a faimly who owns a coastal house
What is the average yearly income of a faimly that owns a coastal home in Connecticut? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.152.23.48 (talk) 23:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Here is the demographic data for Old Saybrook, Connecticut which is one town on the coast of Connecticut. That page is updated for 2009; the Wikipedia article contains information for 2000.  If you use that website, you can get information for any town in Connecticut you wish; similarly all Wikipedia articles on U.S. towns and cities (including Connecticut) contain demographic data, including median incomes.  -- Jayron  32  13:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, what is the average price of a one day public beach admission ticket in Connecticut? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.152.23.48 (talk) 23:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, public beaches in Connecticut don't charge admission, you can just walk onto them. There may be a change to park you car nearby in a parking lot, but that will vary depending on the lot.  The beach itself, however, is free of charge.  The only U.S. state which regularly charges for beach admission is New Jersey, via their system of beach tags.  -- Jayron  32  13:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Here is admissions to one particular beach in Connecticut, though it appears to be more than merely a "beach", as there are swimming pools, spray parks, and other attractions covered by the cost of admission. As far as I know, "public beaches", which is just a strip of sand along the shore, don't normally charge admission just to sit on the sand or wade in the Ocean.  -- Jayron  32  13:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Indeed, by definition a public beach is public - if you can walk to it, it's no different than any other park. Automobile parking fees are charged for practical reasons, and will depend on the town in which the beach is located (unless there's some overarching CT state beach regulatory bureau). Fee schedules will show lots of variation; This page shows one scheme for charging these fees in a beach town the next state over.  You can vastly reduce the per-day parking rate by buying a sticker for the year, season, or week; but if you're just there for a weekend, you're better off eating the fifty bucks.  Obviously Dennis, MA, is not in Connecticut; but that's the general idea.  Find the town that contains the beach you're going to for specific information.  The best thing to do cost-wise is find some place nearby to park for free (know anyone in the neighborhood?) where you won't get towed, and just walk the remaining distance. This isn't always possible, and requires intimate knowledge of the nearby area (and a lot of luck!).  ☯.Zen  Swashbuckler  .☠  18:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * In most states, you would be correct: beaches are generally considered truly "public", and thus free to access, land. However, New Jersey works differently, access to many (not all, but many) beaches in New Jersey requires purchasing a pass.  See Beach tag.  However, as a widespread practice, New Jersey is almost singular in such admissions fees for public beaches, in my experience.  I grew up not far from Connecticut, and frequented the beaches in New Hampshire and Massachusetts; I've been to beaches in literally every state from York Beach, Maine to Fort Lauderdale, Florida and New Jersey is the only state I know of where such admissions are charged as a matter of course.  However, I have found a few other beaches in Connecticut which do charge admission, so it may be more common than I led on to above: The Town of Clinton has a beach which requires passes.  Seaside Park in Bridgeport requires day passes for automobile access; I don't see anything regarding access on foot.  On the other end of the spectrum, the Niantic Bay Boardwalk is along a beach in East Lyme, and is free to access and has free parking nearby.  So you get a range in Connecticut.  If you really want to search out various beaches in Connecticut This website has a full list of public beaches, each link leads to a description of the beach and whether or not it charges fees.  That's probably exactly what you are looking for.  -- Jayron  32  19:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "Public" doesn't necessarily mean "free". Here in Indiana, state parks are public, but you have to pay to use them — they're fenced off, and it's trespassing to go in them unless you go in the main entrance, where there's a gatehouse.  They even charge you if you walk in!  Nyttend (talk) 23:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Entirely true, although there is an expectation that such lands and their maintenance is already paid for in the form of taxes... But agreed, many public facilities do charge for use. -- Jayron  32  02:37, 17 January 2013 (UTC)