Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2014 August 9

= August 9 =

Sikh boy's head bump
Now and then I see boys, who I think are of Sikh families, wearing a light head-covering tied so as to bunch some of the hair, in a way that reminds me of the bump sometimes portrayed on the Buddha's head. What's that about? —Tamfang (talk) 07:37, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Seems to be called a Patka. (Looks like a scoop of ice cream on the second kid.) Clarityfiend (talk) 07:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It totally looks like somebody just came by and plopped a scoop of ice cream on his head. I've never seen that before. I've seen the bigger hair coverings (I would call it a turban, but I'm not sure what it's really called), but I've never seen that type. You learn something new everyday! Bali88 (talk) 03:14, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

English writer, "shown in his dotage for a fee"

 * Reading The Happy Return by C. S. Forester, one of the references escaped me. Hornblower is invited by a Spaniard to view a shackled and raving madman. Hornblower, a sensitive soul, is repulsed, but reflects that "One of the greatest writers of the English language, and a dignitary of the Church to boot, had once been shown in his dotage for a fee". Who was this unhappy man? DuncanHill (talk) 08:02, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't quite know why, as he was hardly a "dignitary of the Church", but I could not help but think of John Bunyan. I can't confirm he was the writer in question, though.  Btw, you're not the first person to have asked this question: this guy's apparently been waiting 7 years for an answer.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  08:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I don't think Bunyan had much of a dotage - but I dare say he was exhibited while in prison. Certainly not a dignitary of the church though (still less of the Church with a capital C), and not the sort of thing either Hornblower or Forester would have erred about. Jonathan Swift (suggested in the thread you linked to) had already struck me as possible - he definitely had a dotage, and was a dignitary of the Church. I've got A. L. Rowse's Swift: A Major Prophet, but no mention as far as I can see of him being exhibited. I feel if he had then Rowse, more than anyone, would have used it to make a point about just how appalling people are! DuncanHill (talk) 08:39, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm assuming "dotage" here is being used in meaning #1. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  08:45, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * That's how I read it - and given the raving prisoner who inspires the thought I'm sure of it. DuncanHill (talk) 08:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Gibbon is Hornblower's favourite author, but he does talk approvingly of Swift (as well as Johnson, Pope, and Gray) in the next chapter. DuncanHill (talk) 08:52, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * In Springfield, it's spelled d'oh-tage. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:31, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Christopher Smart, possibly? He was incarcerated in St Luke's Hospital for Lunatics, and wrote on religious matters, but he wasn't an ordained minister.  Swift is probably the best candidate, in default of a definitive answer. Tevildo (talk) 08:57, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Ah poor Kit Smart - I'm glad he had his cat to keep him company, the cherubs of the tribe of Tiger are a great comfort. He may have been ordained - wasn't he something in one of the Universities (I think you had to take orders to hold University posts then)? But no, I don't think he quite fits the bill. Swift does seem most likely for the time being. DuncanHill (talk) 09:16, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * If Swift only became "insane" in old age, I suspect he may have had Alzheimers, or some other form of senior dementia. StuRat (talk) 11:51, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * It's an interesting question - there's a good examination of it in Brain: A Journal of Neurology, Vol 129, Issue 11, Pp. 3127-3137, accessible here. DuncanHill (talk) 21:41, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * What does Rowse write about the Reverend Francis Wilson? He's been accused of all sorts of things, from stealing Swift’s books, defrauding him of money and using “Deanery funds to make a personal display of charity” to threatening and assaulting Swift, and forcing him to drink alcohol. See Jonathan Swift: A Hypocrite Reversed by David Nokes. Maybe there was another rumor at one time about Wilson having showcased Swift for money. ---Sluzzelin talk  12:05, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Nothing in the index for Wilson. Rowse doesn't go into much detail about the final illness though, it's more of a biography of his works. DuncanHill (talk) 21:37, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Fascinating question.
 * Hinges on exhibition of "dotage" - easily best search term.
 * "One of the greatest writers of the English language, and"
 * "a dignitary of the Church to boot,"
 * "had once been shown in his dotage for a fee."


 * Nothing at all on Hornblower (or Forester) and dotage in JSTOR or Questia. Nothing relevant in Google Scholar on same searches. Nothing on dotage in Hornblower Companion, online archives of C.S. Forester Society, Sternlicht's study, C.S. Forester and the Hornblower Saga, or (online) biography by his son, John Forester.


 * A response to this identical question, posed in the Shakespeare newsgroup on July 11, 1997, notes that "The story is told that his [Jonathan Swift's] servants would take fees to show him to curious onlookers." humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare English author displayed when senile?


 * If that story is printed in a biography of Jonathan Swift - or another source - that C. S. Forester was likely to have read, or known second-hand, prior to writing The Happy Return (published 1937), then I think we we have it nailed. Next step is a look at pre-1937 biographies of Swift.


 * I've sent a couple of email inquiries to acknowledged C. S. Forester experts, one of whom already responded as working on it. If permitted by my source, I will report back here. If identification of allusion documented, will revise article. Paulscrawl (talk) 22:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Paulscrawl, wow thank you! DuncanHill (talk) 22:59, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. What I missed above is obvious fact that reading of Forester-1937 is one thing; reading of Hornblower-1808 another. Where did young Hornblower read or hear of this story, prior to 1808? Gibbon is looking more likely a source for anecdote of servants having Swift "shown in dotage for a fee." Paulscrawl (talk) 00:08, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * On second thought, Samuel Johnson more likely source. Paulscrawl (talk) 00:27, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Chalk up one more vote (not citable in article) for Jonathan Swift.

I have emailed permission to quote here, on Talk page ("Sure Paul"), a noted Forester biographer and Hornblower scholar, English professor and retired U.S. Navy Commander. His work:

His rather anticlimactic conclusion:
 * "I think it was Swift. He was hospitalized several times in Dublin and once placed in a madhouse?"

I've (almost) totally replaced Jonathan Swift - References in that sad article with current academic authorities and open access historic sources, but still haven't found source text for Hornblower's allusion. I'm not done yet - added a couple books to Open Library (Orrery, Delany) and looking to add several more 18C sources mentioned by Leslie Stephen (see References for his notes.)

The game is afoot! Paulscrawl (talk) 08:54, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you Paulscrawl - I'd seen your improvement to the Swift article, and really appreciate all your effort in hunting down the answer to this literary puzzle. DuncanHill (talk) 09:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * And I must see if I can get hold of a copy of Professor Sternlicht's book. DuncanHill (talk) 09:36, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Presidential pardons in the USA; bizarre circumstances
The recent anniversaries of Watergate, Nixon's resignation, and Ford's pardon of Nixon brought to mind the following question. Can a US President pardon himself? Is that a settled question of law? Or, as yet, an unanswered legal question? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:58, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * No, it's not a settled question; the issue has never arisen. However, it wouldn't stop the president from being impeached. --jpgordon:==( o ) 18:04, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. What do you mean by your last sentence?  Are you saying that even if a President pardoned himself, an impeachment can still move forward? If so, why do you make that claim?  Is that itself a settled question of law, one that has arisen before?   Thanks.    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:12, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * As a result of an impeachment trial, the President can be removed from office. I don't see any reasonable interpretation of the Constitution that would allow the President to pardon himself of that penalty.  Criminal penalties might be a bit more iffy.  StuRat (talk) 18:43, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Jpgordon is referring to Article Two of the Constitution, Section 2, Clause 1, particularly the last part: "he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment". If you google things like President + pardon + himself + constitution you will find this being discussed all over the place, usually pointing out that the Constitution doesn't say he can't (except in cases of impeachment). But as jpgordon wrote, it's not settled and there are other opinions, for example "Pardon Me?: The Constitutional Case Against Presidential Self-Pardons" by Brian C. Kalt. ---Sluzzelin talk  18:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Related question
Ignoring the cases of impeachment, are there any restrictions whatsoever on the presidential pardon power? Or is it absolute (with no oversight whatsoever)? I assume that the Congress and/or the Supreme Court can never overturn a presidential pardon; is that correct? So, theoretically, if an individual committed, say, even federal capital offenses (e.g., mass murders of many federal employees), the president can still issue a pardon, unfettered? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The power of Presidential Pardons is discussed in Federalist No. 74, where Hamilton implies that the presidential pardon is intentionally final and deliberately rests only with the president's decision, not subject to review from other bodies: "On the other hand, as men generally derive confidence from their numbers, they might often encourage each other in an act of obduracy, and might be less sensible to the apprehension of suspicion or censure for an injudicious or affected clemency. On these accounts, one man appears to be a more eligible dispenser of the mercy of government, than a body of men." (bold mine). And later in that document "The dilatory process of convening the legislature, or one of its branches, for the purpose of obtaining its sanction to the measure, would frequently be the occasion of letting slip the golden opportunity. The loss of a week, a day, an hour, may sometimes be fatal. If it should be observed, that a discretionary power, with a view to such contingencies, might be occasionally conferred upon the President, it may be answered in the first place, that it is questionable, whether, in a limited Constitution, that power could be delegated by law; and in the second place, that it would generally be impolitic beforehand to take any step which might hold out the prospect of impunity. A proceeding of this kind, out of the usual course, would be likely to be construed into an argument of timidity or of weakness, and would have a tendency to embolden guilt."  Clearly, the original intent of the writers of the Constitution was to vest the power to pardon solely with the President, the power is absolute and not subject to review.  -- Jayron  32  20:01, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. OK, I see what you (and Hamilton) are saying.  However, your above quote indicates "... one man appears to be a more eligible dispenser of the mercy of government, than a body of men ...".  This at least implies that the purpose of the pardon power is to dispense mercy (on behalf of the government), and not to be used as a political favor to friends and/or as a political statement.  No?   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:17, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, sure. But you can never know a man's inner thoughts.  Who's to say what is mercy and what is favoritism... -- Jayron  32  23:18, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, of course, we can't read the president's mind. My point was that the purpose (as intended by the framers) was to dispense mercy on behalf of the government.  And I guess an implied further point I was making is that the power can be/is/has been easily abused in terms of serving as political favors to friends and as political statements.    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * More from #74: "It is not to be doubted, that a single man of prudence and good sense is better fitted, in delicate conjunctures, to balance the motives which may plead for and against the remission of the punishment, than any numerous body whatever." If prudence and good sense are not among a President's traits, then yes, it is possible for a President to use the pardon as a political tool.  That is technically correct.  In any political system, the opportunities for graft, favoritism and cronyism are available to all in power, and no system is better than the people who run it.  -- Jayron  32  00:40, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree. "Prudence" and "good sense" are the keys to Hamilton's statement regarding the pardon power.  Thanks.    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:56, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Ford's pardon of Nixon may have cost him the 1976 election. This is why presidents will typically wait until they're about to leave office before issuing controversial pardons. They can't be impeached if they've already left office, nor are they concerned about re-election. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:56, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, exactly. It is generally accepted that Ford's pardon of Nixon cost him the 1976 election.  In fact, Ford himself even conceded so.  And, yes, most presidents wait until the very last minute (i.e., their last day in office) to issue their pardons.  As you say, they cannot be impeached and there is no concern for re-election.  In other words, there is no political fall-out.  Thus, they feel insulated from any repercussions from their pardon decisions.  The same typically happens with state governors, as well.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:40, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * And while such may be a friendly gesture, it's not likely to do the president or his pardoned pal much political good, as the president will no longer be in position to affect policy... unless his pardoned pal hires him as a lobbyist. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:37, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Correct. No political good.  But it does get the scoundrel out of prison.  Which, I assume, is the main goal.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:11, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If he's still a scoundrel, he'll eventually be back. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:16, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Theoretically ... yes. Ideally ... yes.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:18, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Is a presidential pardon of someone still effective if it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that it was bought? Would any other official or legislative body have any legal basis to challenge or ignore it and keep the person in prison or bring him to trial after a bought pardon? For instance, if President X, the week before he left office, advertised a pardon on Ebay and pardoned the winning bidder. Or if a recording and witnesses had proved that Nixon and Ford had a conversation wherein Nixon said he would appoint Ford to the Vice Presidency only if Ford promised a certain pardon to Nixon afterwards? Historians doubted that such an explicit agreement was in fact struck, but some said that Nixon chose Ford because he expected Ford was the sort of person who was almost certain to give him a pardon without the need for such a discussion. Tennessee Governor Ray Blanton sold pardons in the 1970's per news stories. Were the pardons honored? Trying the corrupt pardoner would not put the freed criminal behind bars. Another tainted pardon scenario would be if the bad guy captured and tortured the president, or made a credible threat of a mass casualty terrorist attack, or of harm to other hostages, unless he received a pardon for whatever offense or offenses he had previously committed, as well as the kidnapping/torture/terrorism and the extortion itself.   Still valid?  Edison (talk) 19:37, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Those are great questions, of course. And I assume that there is no "real" legal answer out there.  I believe that the legislative branch (Congress) and the judicial branch (US Supreme Court) cannot get involved, due to the separation of powers.  Perhaps, however, someone can argue that these are not "pardons" and thus they do not fall under the pardon power of the president.  They can be seen as bribery, fraud, assault (in the torture of the president example), and all sorts of other crimes.  Perhaps the fraudulent and criminal nature of the act removes it from the definition of a "real pardon".  Who knows?  Good questions, though.  Now, of course, there is no political fall-out to the President himself (assuming he is at the end of his final term).  However, I assume, it can have great political fall-out to his party, probably something that he wants to avoid (unless he wants to "hand over" the subsequent presidency to the opposing party).  So, there are some practical considerations to all of these "academic" and theoretical questions.  Thanks.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:44, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

John Dominis Holt
I need some help tracing some information about a person by the name of John Dominis Holt. He was either a major or colonel during the Kingdom of Hawaii. He is mentioned here and some of his photographs are listed here at commons:Category:John Dominis Holt. I've pinpoint down to either a nephew or a uncle. The first is this findagrave person John Dominis Holt, II (1861–1916), whose genealogy is listed here. Another candidate is his uncle John Domnis Holt, I (1839–1922) who married Hannah Auld listed here as a brother of Owen Jones Holt, John Domnis Holt, II's father. But there no way to know since none of these sources I can find mention anything about either being a colonel or major, any reference to the colonel or major don't specify who is who. To add to the confusion of the research is there is a descendant who had the same name who lived in the 20th century and was an author. What would help is finding a source describing the colonel/major or an obituary of either of the two John Dominis Holt, which might give a brief bio which can help identify who is who. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:07, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * There's one more book that mentions a Major J.D. Holt: . I'm getting a "reached your viewing limit" error but perhaps someone else will be able to view it - those limits seem erratic sometimes. The google search result looked like he was being listed in a photo caption: "Q.Q. King Kalakaua and military 'Staff. Left to right.re.ar.:-CoIl Col. Curtis Iaukea, Major Edward Purvis, Col. George H. Macfarlane, Captain A. B. Hayley, Major J. D. Holt, Major Antone Rosa. Front Row: Col. Charles H. Judd, Kalakaua and Gov.".
 * As for newspapers,
 * Major J.D. Holt is mentioned here in a list of guests at a ball at Iolani Palace. Report is dated Nov. 20, 1888.
 * Major John Dominis Holt is mentioned in this from Sept 23, 1890 as part of the King's attendants at a formal audience.
 * Colonel John Dominis Holt is mentioned here (from Aug 29, 1892), similarly as one of a group attending the Queen at a formal occasion.
 * That's all I've got, no obits or bios, I'm sorry. 184.147.144.166 (talk) 22:40, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Whatever Google's game is with the "viewing limits", it has nothing to do with counting the number of pages you read. I just tried your link (minus all the crap after "major j.d. holt"; the ei= is some kind of personal identification I felt prudent to omit) and got the exact same message you did, though I hadn't been perusing any Google Books earlier today. Wnt (talk) 04:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Books about Togo and Benin
Hello everyone, I am having trouble trying to find books about the contemporary history of Togo and/or Benin. I am aware that there are a few books about this subject but they are usually in French, a language I do not speak. Can any of you Wikipedians help me out? Thank you! --Skiffle Vond (talk) 20:17, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Here. --AboutFace 22 (talk) 02:03, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Useless. --Skiffle Vond (talk) 15:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I also had no luck looking for books on Amazon. But here is a university course on the contemporary history of West Africa in general, and it has a reading list of three texts in English that might at least be a start. (Plus you could check the other readings listed under each week, or email the prof.) 184.147.144.166 (talk) 17:09, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Good question. Have you tried searching Worldcat.org?  I did a quick search and found a few things including
 * Our World: Togo. Great Neck Pub, n.d..
 * Background Notes on Countries of the World: Togo. Business Source Complete. Washington: Supt. of Docs, n.d..
 * United States. Department of State. Bureau of Public Affairs. 1987. Togo. Department of State Publication. Background Notes Series. 1-6.
 * Our World: Benin. Great Neck Pub, n.d..

The Pritzker Military Museum & Library is a GLAM institution. You can check out our project page at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GLAM/Pritzker

If you want a PMML staff member to answer your reference question using our collection, leave a note on my talk page or email us at librarian@pritzkermilitary.org   TeriEmbrey (talk) 16:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia says: "Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed" It will be removed but not before it has been harvested by a robot. --AboutFace 22 (talk) 00:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)