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

= March 9 =

The disease of kings
Gout. The old adage is that gout is the disease of kings. I have always wondered....what kings do we know of that actually had gout?--Mark Miller (talk) 01:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Henry VIII of England was believed to have suffered from gout, and the term "disease of kings" is probably related to him. --Canley (talk) 01:12, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Also Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor . --Canley (talk) 01:17, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Asa of Judah's "foot disease" is often said to have been gout (see here, for example), though our article doesn't mention it. הסרפד  (call me Hasirpad) 04:11, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it should be spelled "the disease of Kings", then. הסרפד  (call me Hasirpad) 16:31, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Queen Anne too. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:32, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Jacques Necker - French Finance Minister
The article for Necker gives two different dates (29 June 1777 AND October 1776) for his commencement as Director-General.

Could someone please clarify?

Thanks 120.148.242.185 (talk) 04:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * As far as I can figure out from the German version, Necker was made contrôleur général des finances in October 1776 and then formally became directeur général des finances in June 1777. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:36, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

History
How can I prove that everything before I was born (1991) wasn't a hoax? I mean, I was not alive before then, so I can not verify that all these things happened. They could be forgeries. Same could be said before you were born. --Sammen Salmonord (talk) 20:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not brave enough to try and answer that! However, solipsism is the area of philosophy concerned with that kind of thought. Thincat (talk) 20:52, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * See also epistemology (and ontology and metaphysics or perhaps Occam's razor). Even I think therefore I am doesn't really establish that the past is not a hoax or shared hallucination. Short answer: you can't, not based on axiomatic reasoning, logic, or direct observation and experimentation, no matter how rigorous. -- and you can never definitively disprove any manner of trickster gods. (Mostly non-philosophers just ignore that problem and lead our normal lives ;) SemanticMantis (talk) 21:12, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, the past before your birth could be a hoax. The whole world (and universe) could have been created last Thursday and none of us could prove otherwise, let alone way back in 1991. Philip Henry Gosse figured that out back in 1857 in his book Omphalos. Edison (talk) 21:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * You can't even prove you were born; at least, born on a particular date in a particular place. Can you honestly say you remember it?  How do you know you weren't adopted?  Why should you trust your parents or the Registrar of Births, any more than those shoddy books that allege people like Lincoln and Gandhi and Henry VIII existed?  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  21:33, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * It was a hoax. You got me. μηδείς (talk) 21:36, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * And an old one at that. From Horse Feathers (1934):
 * Prosecutor: Chicolini, when were you born?
 * Chicolini: I don't remember. I was just a little-a baby.
 * ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:08, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * First..prove you exist then worry about everything before that.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:52, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Only the Glaroon knows for sure. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:58, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Descartes had doubts about everything in his Meditations. Doubt can be a fruitful exercise. Star Lord  -  星王 (talk) 02:51, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Also consider the many-worlds interpretation and Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics... Suppose you have a sentience (whatever that is) newly created, which has never interacted with the world except by the sole information it is created.  Then the rest of the world is like Schroedinger's cat in a box - it doesn't know whether it is alive or dead, or what it is.  Then it makes an observation, and another, and another, and the rest of the world becomes resolved into more and more specific quantum states... (the two hypotheses differ in that for one there is a different consciousness branching for every possible outcome of these observations, the other that there is only one "real" one) Wnt (talk) 04:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Could a medieval monk leave the monastery?
If a medieval monk ever decided that he no longer wanted to live a life of poverty, chastity and obedience could he leave the monastery and live an average but moral life? What was the process he'd have to go through to be released from the monastery? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.65.135.44 (talk) 20:34, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * You are speaking of a thousand-year period spread over at least a continent, and not defining "average" or "moral". You might want to ask a more specific claim.  You can look at Category:Monastic rules, but this doesn't cover every Catholic monastic order. μηδείς (talk) 21:32, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Also didn't specify Catholic. The bhikku vows are for life. Of course, if people can escape prison and live a new life, they can escape anything. Actually, reading my own link, it seems you can give up and retake your vows, but only seven times. Seems fair. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:53, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Here are 227 other rules, if anyone's interested. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Medeis makes a valid point (and one I always mention when someone asks about "the Middle Ages" in general, but nevertheless, the answer is still "yes"...generally speaking. A monk would need the permission of the abbot to be dispensed from his monastic vows, just like a priest would have to get permission from the bishop to dispense with his priestly vows. They weren't slaves, so as long as they had a good reason, they could certainly do so. If they thought they just couldn't hack it as a monk, that might not be the greatest reason, and they would probably have a kind of remedial monastic training to prepare them better. But some people just aren't suited for that kind of life, so they could leave if they really wanted to. Some monks were the stereotypical "younger sons" who were sent to the monastery by their well-off family as children, so they would have somewhere to go and someone to support them if they left, but that wouldn't be true for all monks. For many of them, the monastery was their best means of support, whether they wanted to be there or not. I'm trying to think of some "former monks" to give as examples, but none are springing to mind, although I am sure I will think of some... Adam Bishop (talk) 22:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Erasmus is a pretty famous example; his having been ordained as a priest probably helped—along with being ‘head-hunted’ by a bishop—but it still took a papal dispensation to make his career change official. This was around the end of the mediaeval period, though, in the late XV c.—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  06:13, 16 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Some monks didn't live a life of chastity and obedience. Some monks got married secretly and had children. Some monks had illegitimate children. That's where new monks and nuns came from. Sleigh (talk) 23:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sometimes the monks and nuns ran away together! Adam Bishop (talk) 09:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Was exclaustration practiced in "the Middle Ages"? I wasn't quick in finding anything conclusive. ---Sluzzelin talk  12:50, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Adam Bishop and Sleigh, you've given me some really interesting information. I was specifically wondering about European monks other than Catholic. And by average and moral I meant a life in which the individual doesn't deprive himself of most or all worldly pleasures but he isn't a decidedly sinful or villainous person either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.65.135.44 (talk) 05:02, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, do you mean eastern Orthodox monks? That could be a bit different. They certainly have monasteries like in the west but there was also a stronger tradition of individual monks living alone in a cave or wherever (in fact, "monk" comes from the Greek "monakhos", meaning a sole person). I'm sure the ones in monasteries could leave, but honestly I'm not sure. I think there are examples of Byzantine emperors entering a monastery, then leaving to attempt a coup or re-enter polutics somehow...but that's not quite what you mean. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:43, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

If there were no European monks other than Catholic then your answer about Catholic monks answers my question completely. Thanks for all your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.65.135.44 (talk) 06:43, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Ancient obscene embroidery?
There is an internet meme which I saw on Facebook, consisting of what looks like an old piece of embroidery, with a picture of people near a building by a field, and  old style letters spelling out "Behold! The field in which I grow my fucks. Lay thine eyes upon it and thou shalt see that it is barren." I wondered if it is some old Bible verse or old motto and the "fucks" is supposed to be "flax" or somesuch, but a Google search for the rest of the phrase only turned up recent blogs and twitter feeds laughing about it, dating back a few weeks. What's up with it? Edison (talk) 21:14, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * It appears to be something photoshopped from the Bayeux tapestry. In a more authentic example of the same phenomenon, the word "sucks" is sometimes hilariously transformed into "fucks" with genuine "old style letters", as you call it, by use of the long s. Hence "where the bee ſucks, there ſuck I" . Paul B (talk) 21:42, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * It's just a joke. It is generated in the style of the Bayeux Tapestry, which is why you think it looks like embroidery. The language and spelling used is completely inconsistent with the era, and it doesn't refer to any Bible verse. It is written in the style of the King James Bible (17th century English), and then an image has been created to look like it was embroidered in the 11th century. Because it's all "old", right? I would assume the sort of geek who put in the time to edit the letters so nicely onto the picture considered writing the motto in realistic abbreviated Latin, with a translation provided, but then concluded funny was more important than creating a convincing forgery. 86.161.109.226 (talk) 21:53, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * It appears to be a product of this website, which allows you to "redesign" the Bayeux tapestry . Paul B (talk) 22:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Although the original shows a couple of random naked chaps in the lower margin for no apparent reason - those nuns were not as innocent as you'd think. Alansplodge (talk) 14:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * In case it's not obvious to some, this is based on the expression "I don't give a fuck." Which is probably relatively old. Much more recently, internet jokes were made of the form "...and not a single fuck was given that day"  or "look at all the fucks I give (implication of "none") . But thanks OP; unlike most iterations, I do find this one humorous! SemanticMantis (talk) 15:55, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * A "fuck" was (until the late 15th century) a hit with a stick. Only later it became metaphoric for applying the male member onto the womans body during sexual congress.--78.51.105.82 (talk) 02:37, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

—-

It’s a quote by Hank Green from the book “An Absolutely Remarkable Thing”: Behold the field in which I grow my fucks. Lay thine eyes upon it and [thou shalt] see that it is barren.” The “thou shalt” may not have been part of the original quote and was added later as an additional flourish. - RAM June 5, 2020