Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2022 October 4

= October 4 =

Andrew Carnegie at Whitman's lecture
Can anyone track down the origin of the claim that Carnegie did not attend Whitman's lecture on Lincoln? The earliest source I found is Jerome Loving's highly reputable Whitman: The Song of Himself (1999), but all of his sources for the claim describe Whitman as having been in attendance, as far as I can tell, including Whitman's published correspondence and Traubel's With Whitman in Camden. Eddie891 Talk Work 02:08, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Loving doesn't say he didn't attend, but did not occupy the box he rented. Kennedy (p. 26-7) has James Russell Lowell, John Burroughs and Charles Eliot Norton in the box to his right, Edmund Clarence Stedman and family opposite, with Carnegie in attendance. I only see two boxes in this interior view of Madison Square Theatre. I know that's a stretch, but Loving cites Kennedy nearby. fiveby(zero) 04:13, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hm, that's an interesting point. Loving's statement Pannapacker is cited by Blake (2006) as saying that Carnegie wasn't there, so I hadn't considered that possibility. Let me see if I can find anything else on that. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:15, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Archive has Blake, so you can follow the citations. has Carnegie in attendance, as does Kaplan. He doesn't cite Loving, but Pannapacker. Pannapacker cites "A Tribute from a Poet". I don't see Pannapacker or Loving citing evidence that he did not attend. Daniel Mark Epstein has a very detailed account in Lincoln and Whitman with more primary sources to examine. fiveby(zero) 14:32, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Good point, corrected Blake. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:39, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * here's an 1887 source suggesting Carnegie was unable to attend Eddie891 Talk Work 14:51, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * We may, then, never know, if contemporary sources give contradictory accounts. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:53, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Traubel (p. 513) describes Whitman as saying merely "Andrew Carnegie paid $350 for his seat", no commentary about whether he was there. Whitman apparently didn't get Carnegies check until April 20. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:58, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Looking at LOC newspapers some have him seated in the pit, while New-York Tribune doesn't list as attending, and with others places his arrival in New York the evening of the 15th. fiveby(zero) 15:22, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Found the Tribune says that he arrived on the evening of the 15th, was too ill to see anyone. The Sun says much the same. Could you highlight the article describing him seated in the pit? I can't seem to find it. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:22, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * same article text as
 * I'm wondering if Carnegie didn't actually write two checks for $350. There's a letter from Johnston to Whitman implying he needs $350 to secure the venue, i can't remember if it's in Daybooks, Correspondence, or With Walt Whitman. He sends the "Whitman is the great poet of America so far" letter to Johnston with $350 enclosed. Later says somewhere that all the proceeds should go to Whitman, and then Whitman receives a $350 check in a letter from Gilder on the 20th. fiveby(zero) 15:51, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Here's Johnston's letter (March 14, 1887). There's also this one (March 24, 1887) Eddie891 Talk Work 16:26, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I saw it in WWC II, p. 430, with "I talked with you about Johnston yesterday: well, this will show you the practical nature of his camaraderie. Johnston is always turning up the pennies but spends the pounds with a certain sort of abandon. He is the kind of a man who might play with riches and die poor—though he's mighty comfortable fixed, I should imagine, as things are going now. This letter gives you a little look in on Johnston for one thing—then adds a point or two of history for keeps." fiveby(zero) 16:28, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * In The Correspondence of Whitman vol. 4 p. 85-88, Whitman mentions the check in a few letters, but doesn't provide much more information other than to repeatedly say he got it and was happy. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:39, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I've had a look at several major bios of Carnegie as well, and two mention it and say he was there (either without citing a source or citing Whitman's letter mentioning it) and the rest don't mention it at all, unfortunately Eddie891 Talk Work 15:06, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Fiveby, for what it's worth, I emailed Loving to ask and he said he was not exactly sure and included the footnote citing the sources we dug up in this discussion now in Walt Whitman's lectures on Abraham Lincoln. Very good work, thanks. I don't think we will find a much better answer than this disagreement between sources... Eddie891 Talk Work 15:44, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Courteous of him to respond. We may never know is always a disappointing result for ref desk questions, but it looks like you are adding some good content to the article. fiveby(zero) 15:11, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Courteous of him to respond. We may never know is always a disappointing result for ref desk questions, but it looks like you are adding some good content to the article. fiveby(zero) 15:11, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

correlation/relationship?
how are legal rights, interests, duty and wrongs correlative of one another in rule of law and their application? Grotesquetruth (talk) 08:50, 4 October 2022 (UTC)


 * One could make a five-dimensional hypercube chart with on axis 1 various legal rights, on axis 2 various interests, on axis 3 various duties, on axis 4 various wrongs, and on axis 5 various jurisdictions. Their interaction, in each of the numerous hypercells, may be different, and the actual application may differ from the written law. Very much in general, confining the question to civil issues, a legal wrong (aka tort) is a violation of an individual's legal rights . The offending party, that is, the party who committed the tortious act, then has the duty to provide an appropriate remedy. The injured party seeking redress should have a genuine interest in the matter (but the onus of establishing that no such interest exists is on the offending party). --Lambiam 10:11, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * One could almost say, using a loosely deterministic approach, that the only degree of freedom in that system is in the definition of duty. One could also retort it is in the definition of tort, but deciders in the end are only using scales extending from interest to duty as judges are by definition themselves unrelated to tort. Variations among systems can very well be considered as determined by semantics, with no other degree of freedom than outside evolution introduced in poetry and by linguists (usually constraining).  --Askedonty (talk) 10:41, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

quote
Paul Freund once said 'the Court should never be influenced by the weather of the day, but inevitably they will be influenced by the climate of the era'. what does the quote mean with respect to existing national legal frameworks? Grotesquetruth (talk) 09:48, 4 October 2022 (UTC)


 * The quote is not about frameworks. It is meant to apply equally in all jurisdictions that follow the rule of law, regardless of the specific legal framework. --Lambiam 10:18, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * yes but the change in climate would mean that these jurisdictions will have to alter laws that work best in the climate of the jurisdiction? Grotesquetruth (talk) 11:49, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The "change in climate" will sometimes be expressed in specific laws (or repeal of specific laws) but may also be expressed extra-legally: in writing, in journalism, at pubs and dinner-parties, on the streets, and today in electronic media. ColinFine (talk) 12:06, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The literal words, as spoken by Paul A. Freund in 1971, are, "I think a President should try to appoint Justices who are sensitive to the climate of the age, not the weather of the day or the weather of the year, but the climate of the age." He clarified that the climate of the age was one of "increasing sensitivity toward human rights" and "large conceptions of equality under law". In the paraphrase by RBG, "the Court" refers specifically to the Supreme Court. --Lambiam 14:47, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Second Italian War of Independence
Was Bologna under siege by Austria, albeit briefly, in 1859 ? This concerns the article Eduardo Majeroni, who was reported as being involved in its defence. Doug butler (talk) 11:13, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Bologna was in the hands of the Austrian Empire. The siege was carried out by the armies of Cavour and Napolean III. So Majeroni was involved in the attack, not the defence. --Lambiam 14:30, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Either way, there seems not to have been any sort of siege in Bologna in 1859. Following the Battle of Solferino in the Second Italian War of Independence, the French and Austrians agreed the Villafranca Armistice in June (for which Wikipedia does not have an article). Bologna was the principal city of the Papal States (aka the Papal Legations), which the Austrians were defending on behalf of the Papacy. One of the terms of the armistice was that Austria should evacuate their forces from the Papal States, which they did. There was a liberal uprising against Papal rule in Bologna, and the departure of the Austrians ensured its success. Alansplodge (talk) 20:58, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you both for clear and succinct answers. We are fortunate to have such a resource as this panel. Doug butler (talk) 21:10, 4 October 2022 (UTC)


 * This timeline of Bologna in 1859 (in Italian) has more details than you could shake a stick at, but no siege. Alansplodge (talk) 21:12, 4 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I have footnoted it as a strategy rather than a confrontation. I'll leave the Italian text to mu correspondent. Doug butler (talk) 21:51, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

the idea of globalisation
Has the idea of "globalisation" been fully adjusted to its true meaning? Grotesquetruth (talk) 14:15, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That would depend on what you mean by “globalization”… different people define the term in different ways. Blueboar (talk) 14:28, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * What is, in your view, the "true" meaning? --Lambiam 14:35, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Blueboar (talk) I think the idea is to unify all governments, nationalities in all respects or at least attempt to. Grotesquetruth (talk) 18:44, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * In that case, the term is not “globalization,” but “one-world government.” The two are unrelated concepts. DOR (HK) (talk) 20:47, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Globalization is the reduction of barriers to the movement among economies of goods, services, capital, people, and ideas. It could credibly be credited with generating more wealth, and reducing more poverty, than any development since the on-set of industrial revolution. DOR (HK) (talk) 20:51, 4 October 2022 (UTC)


 * (ec)Check Globalization and see if that squares with your theory. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:48, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That some believe one-world government could arise out of globalization does not mean that such politically motivated assertions have any basis in logic. “Coulda, woulda, shoulda,” as my wife says. DOR (HK) (talk) 20:53, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

rule of law
the rule of law implies that the creation of laws, their enforcement, and the relationships among legal rules are themselves legally regulated. what is meant by being "legally regulated" here or who regulates these laws? Grotesquetruth (talk) 18:19, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I have to ask: are you getting these questions about law and the rule of law from a textbook or essay paper of some kind? They seem weirdly formulaic, and I feel that some of your later questions (including this one) would be unnecessary if you had followed up our earlier responses with a modest amount of reading around the subject. GenevieveDEon (talk) 18:27, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * oh no, just a subject of interest. here to form better clarity of the area. Grotesquetruth (talk) 18:52, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "X is legally regulated" means the same as: "X is regulated by law", that is, the law lays down the rules that pertain to X. --Lambiam 09:54, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Rule of law: "The rule of law is the political philosophy that all citizens and institutions within a country, state, or community are accountable to the same laws, including lawmakers and leaders. The rule of law is defined in the Encyclopedia Britannica as "the mechanism, process, institution, practice, or norm that supports the equality of all citizens before the law, secures a nonarbitrary form of government, and more generally prevents the arbitrary use of power." The term rule of law is closely related to constitutionalism as well as Rechtsstaat and refers to a political situation, not to any specific legal rule."
 * The basic principle is that the government and its agents (police etc) must follow the law, and any changes to the law must follow rules about how and when the law can be changed. Exactly how this is handled will vary in different countries, but will typically involve some sort of Constitution.  This is in contrast to many (but not necessarily all) dictatorships and similar regimes where the ruler or their agents are free to act as they will. 20:04, 9 October 2022 (UTC) Iapetus (talk) 20:04, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * so you say, laws can only be amended based on these rules? now can these rules be altered? if so, is there a something to follow suit for amending the rules attached to these laws? Grotesquetruth (talk) 06:30, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

(academic title) in residence vs visiting
A scholar-in-residence on a visit to a University, say for four or five days; is that OK? OED has residence in this sense thus: "The fact of living or staying regularly at or in some place for the discharge of special duties, or to comply with some regulation; also, the period during which such stay is required of one. Now freq. in phrase in residence. a.2.a Eccl., with ref. to the presence of incumbents in their benefices, canons in their cathedrals, etc." Wouldn't it take more than a few days to be in-residence? An academic on a short visit is a visiting scholar rather than a scholar-in-residence. Am I right? 2405:201:F00A:206C:E59F:9B36:1107:1963 (talk) 19:26, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * One thought: who pays for housing? A visitor may pay her own way, but residency implies lodging is provided. DOR (HK) (talk) 20:56, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Visiting scholars can be in residence for a surprisingly long time.  User:Chris Bennett said in the first iteration of his user page (back in 2005) "...lived in London for several years before moving to San Diego, where he has stayed, so far, for about 20 years longer than he expected to when he arrived."   He was still a "visiting scholar" at UCSD when he died in 2014. 92.8.223.188 (talk) 18:16, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. That page of the deceased Wikipedian took me a long way. I guess experts had a hard time trying to maintain a page they majorly contributed to in good shape. Sad.
 * Calling a professorial short visit to an academic institution 'scholar-in-residence' is not something we see with reputed institutions, I guess. 2405:201:F00A:206C:34C0:13DF:CF18:853E (talk) 08:14, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Why didn't Grey receive his BA?
According to our article Edward Grey, 1st Viscount Grey of Fallodon "by January 1884 he had been sent down but allowed to return to sit his final examination. Grey returned in the summer and achieved Third Class honours in Jurisprudence. Though he was entitled to receive a BA, he never received one. He would receive an honorary doctorate of law from Oxford in 1907". I would like to know why he didn't receive his BA, and, given that he was allowed to sit Finals, was he actually sent down or was he in fact rusticated? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 22:18, 4 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Grey of Fallodon : being the life of Sir Edward Grey afterwards Viscount Grey of Fallodon by Trevelyan, George Macaulay (1940) p. 20 quotes the " Balliol minute-book":
 * Sir Edward Grey, having been repeatedly admonished for idleness, and having shown himself ignorant of the work set him during the vacation as a condition of residence, was sent down, but allowed to come up to pass his examination in June.
 * The author goes on to say that he "took a Third in Jurisprudence, which, together with his Second in Classical Moderations of three years before, entitled him to a B.A. degree. But he neglected to take it...", perhaps preoccupied with the bird sanctuary at Fallodon which he had established after being sent down. Alansplodge (talk) 11:02, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I would question whether he was entitled to the degree if he had really been sent down (expelled from the University), rather than just rusticated (excluded for a limited time). I don't know how things worked in Oxford in the 1880s but when I was at Cambridge in the 1970s there was a rule that you had to be resident in Cambridge for a certain number of days to be eligible for the BA. So, if a similar rule applied, even if he had only been rusticated he would have ha to spend some extra time in residence to compensate for his absence during the rustication. Perhaps evidence that he had passed the exam would be of value even in the absence of a degree. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 14:42, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * When I was there, there were three "l"'s in "Balliol".  Clicking on Alansplodge's link confirms it. 92.8.223.188 (talk) 18:05, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Apologies, a slip of the digit, now corrected. Alansplodge (talk) 20:15, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It used to be the case that you had to be physically present at a graduation ceremony to get you B.A. Now that is no long necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.74.1.199 (talk) 05:38, 7 October 2022 (UTC)