Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 November 1

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

November 1

What are the findings of studies investigating correlation between a persons perceived attractivness and the wealth of their parents?

I would assume that people with wealthier parents are considered more attractive, because either of their wealthy parents would be more likely to have married/had sex with a more attractive than average person. Pinker says theres no greater predictor of a womans attractivness than the wealth of her husband. And anyone whos been to university and noticed that the woman are definatley more attractive than average (being the children of richer than average parents) will see the truth in this. (children of richer parents having higher educational attainment) So is my thinking correct? Willy turner 00:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

One factor I'd take into account: wealthier people are able to pay for better medical/dental care, as well as better quality food and the like. They can also spend more on make-up and clothing, which, as you undoubtedly know, can do a whole lot. Random Nonsense 00:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

A cynical novelist (I think it was a novelist) said "We don't fall in love with a person, but with their money". I can't trace the source of that, but I can't say it doesn't have a grain of truth in it. In George Orwell's Keep the Aspidistra Flying, Gordon Comstock says "A woman hates the sight of you if you’ve got no money... No woman ever judges a man by anything except his income. Of course she doesn’t put it to herself like that. She says he’s SUCH A NICE man—meaning that he’s got plenty of money. And if you haven’t got money you aren’t NICE. You’re dishonoured, somehow. You’ve sinned." Comstock's rich friend Ravelston replies "I think that’s putting it a little too strongly. Things aren’t so crude as all that." Xn4 03:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• A counterexample is that people in wealthy countries are more likely to be obese, and that's not too pretty. --Sean 12:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

A countercounterexample is that the wealthy in wealthy countries are less likely to be obese, due to better opportunities for exercise, better diet, and less consumption of cheap sugar- and fat-filled foods. Marco polo 15:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Planchet?

Is it true that there was a person named Planchet, who used supplies the court with various produce and delicacies and former servant of D'Artagnan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.134.239 (talk) 02:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Planchet was fictional. Xn4 02:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

English ambassadors to France

Did King Louis XIV have any English ambassadors to his court? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.134.239 (talk) 02:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Not so many as he had mistresses. The ambassadors included Ralph Montagu. Xn4 02:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Neat! Clio the Muse 02:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Le Conte de Guiche

Was there a person named Le Conte de Guiche, a member of high nobility living at Versailles and ex-lover of another fictional person named madame la Duchesse de Chevreuse? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.134.239 (talk) 02:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

See Armand de Gramont, comte de Guiche. His father Antoine III de Gramont was another comte de Guiche. There was also a real Marie de Rohan-Montbazon, duchesse de Chevreuse. Xn4 02:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Mademoiselle de La Valleire

She was young lady member of lesser nobility living at Versailles, previously a member of Moliere's theater company. A ture person in history? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.134.239 (talk) 02:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, a true person. Louise de La Vallière was one of the many mistresses of King Louis XIV. Xn4 02:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Information about Amy Bjork Harris, Co author of Staying OK

Respected Sir,

I have searched the net but could not find information about the life of Amy Bjork Harris, coauthor of STAYING OK. Only information about the life of Thomas A Harris, co author of Staying OK is available.

Kindly put the information on the life of Amy Bjork Harris on Net.

Thanks & Regards Ritu Singh 05:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. If Amy is not notable enough to have anything about her on the Net already, she is not notable enough for Wikipedia. See WP:NN. But if you find anything out, do let us know.--Respected Sir 08:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Louis More' pronounced -MORAY

I asked for help with this search once before ,recieved some suggestions ,followed them up but to no avail.Some time around 93' or 94 I walked into an artists studio on South Beach,Fl., of a then 21-23 year old (+or-) artist.On the walls and in his brochures were reviews and articles of him and his work. He was reputed to be a master on the level of Michelangelo and others of that leveland in fact there a couple of articles which spoke about him even being the reincarnation of Michelangelo which he did not care for as everyone likes to be known for their own works and so on. He had works in his studio from different artistic mediums,oils, watercolors pen and ink I think and sculpture.There was a sculpture titled " Jesu Cristo de la Roca". There was also an oil painting of Lorenzo de Medici in armor but not wearing a helmet and with about a three day beard. All of his work was magnificent in my perception .I am interested in finding out anything I can about this artist. I've done web searches, google searches , all the web searches and everything I know of to find any info on him or his work and can't find anything.Any help you could lend would be greatly appreciated. jcord8 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.235.0.73 (talk) 05:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Personal income

What was the average personal income in the US in the 1880s, 1900, 910s, 1920s, and 1930s? Thanks! --S.dedalus 06:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The US government did not begin collecting data on income until the late 1920s, so your question is difficult to answer. The U.S. Census's Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1970 mentions the pioneering work of Charles Spahr (Charles B. Spahr, The Present Distribution of Wealth in the United States, 1896), estimating incomes as of 1891. According to Spahr, the average family income in 1891, at a time when most Americans were farm workers living partly by subsistence, was about $380 in 1891 terms. The same source refers to work by Willford King (e.g. Wealth and Income of the People of the United States, 1915) on incomes during the first two decades of the 20th century. The census's historical reference (cited above) cites a mean household income in 1935-36 of $1,631 in 1936 terms. Marco polo 20:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You might also try looking at volumes 2 and 3 of Historical statistics of the United States : earliest times to the present (ISBN 0521817919). It's similar to Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1970, but it's newer and it's much larger. You may find data in it that wasn't included in the older Census book. RedPen 22:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Tudor solutions to the problem of vagrancy

Good morning. I heed some background please of Tudor approaches to the problems of poverty and vagrancy. Thank you for your help. 217.43.15.118 09:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You might start with Elizabethan Poor Law (1601). Marco polo 15:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The first anti-vagrant statute was passed by Parliament in 1495 during the reign of Henry VII. Officials were ordered to seize "all such vagabonds, idle and suspected persons living suspiciously and then so taken to set in stocks, there to remain for the space of three days and three nights and there to have none other sustenance but bread and water, and after the said three days and nights, to be had out and set at large and then be commanded to avoid the town." Definitely no ASBOs! Clio the Muse 03:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Ancient grudge

Here in Britain we have longstanding enmities with the Spanish (the Armada), the Germans (the phrase "Two World Wars and one World Cup" springs to mind) and the French (more wars than I can begin to enumerate). But as far as I can recall, there is no particular rivalry with the Italians, beyond their shortlived dalliance with the Axis in World War II. Is there any reason for this? 80.254.147.52 10:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

We've probably forgiven them for the little unpleasantnesses involving Julius Caesar and Claudius, because they produce some very nice ice cream. Funny how we've also forgiven the Danes and Norwegians, and more recently the Dutch who made a habit of thrashing the navy. -- Arwel (talk) 12:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Do we really still hold a grudge against the Spanish about the Armada? And anyone who uses the phrase "Two World Wars and one World Cup" is an idiot (this is not directed at the OP). Besides, the Germans have three World Cups... Hammer Raccoon 13:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You're probably right about the Spanish, actually. But they were always painted as "bad hats" in the traditional 1066 and All That approach to history, whereas the Italians never were.

Amazingly, I have discovered there is an article on Two World Wars, One World Cup (which makes much the same point about the Germans' superiority on the football pitch); Wikipedia really does have articles on the strangest things. 80.254.147.52 14:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Does anybody hate the Italians? They seem pretty good at not developing hate-ships (vs. friendship). Wrad 15:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The French? Hammer Raccoon 17:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Haha, yeah. I mean besides soccer. :) Wrad 17:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The Ethiopians? Rmhermen 17:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yeah. Good point. The Ethiopians, Somalians, and Libyans probably have good reason. Wrad 18:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Getting back to the question in hand, the reason we have a grudge with the Germans is because of our very direct conflicts in the past century. As for the French, you mention yourself the sheer volume of our wars with each other. The fact that we are neighbours (familiarity breeds contempt) doesn't help either. Correct me if I'm wrong, but besides from World War Two, we haven't had much military engagement with the Italians since Roman times. I really do think it is as simple as that. And don't discount the impact the football... "Two World Wars and One World Cup" probably sums up our two reasons for holding grudges against anyone. Our rivalry with the Argentinians is half Falklands War, half Hand of God. Or maybe that's just me. Hammer Raccoon 21:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It may simply be a matter of, "What have you done for (to?) me lately?" Compare the relationships of the U.S. with the U.S.S.R./Russia and China pre-, during and post-WW II. — Michael J 00:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Bad trouble between the Germans and the British was a 20th century phenomenon, driven by the rivalries which began to develop between the two of us in the late 19th century. If the Germans have an old enemy (Erbfeind), then it isn't the English or the British. I think the point about the Italians is that during the Middle Ages, and well into the modern period, Italy itself was divided between various empires and kingdoms and the Papal States. While we (the English) fought some of those from time to time, let's face it, who haven't we fought? There was, of course, tremendous fear in England (and in some other parts of what became the UK) of Roman Catholicism in general and of the Pope, who was almost invariably Italian and was usually portrayed as devilishly wily. The affair of the Popish Plot gives us some flavour of that. But while most of the British were hostile to Popery, that wasn't identified specifically with Italy and the Italians. In any event, there was no united Italy for us to see as even a potential foe until 1861, after the Risorgimento, and there was generally goodwill towards the new Italy. After beginning the First World War as a neutral country, Italy came down on the Allied side, so the British only ever fought the united Italy for less than four years during the Second World War. We failed ever to see it as a permanent enemy, no doubt greatly helped by Italy's changing sides during the War and ending it as one of the Allied Powers. Luckily for Anglo-Italian relations, during the Falklands War of 1982 the penny failed to drop with the British at large that Argentina is a country of largely Italian blood, and that most of the Italians were seeing the Argentinian point of view at least as well as that of the British. For the English, the only true «ennemi héréditaire» is France, that continental spider which has so often maddened and baffled us, but which remains our home from home. Xn4 00:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Pardon me for my potential misunderstanding, but my impression, from over here across The Pond, is that while the English and French have their long-standing animosity and a history of war (now mostly quite in the past), there is also a strong tradition of interaction and bonding -- that it has been common for English people to speak French to some degree -- and that while the two nations have had old disagreements and conflicts, there is an extremely strong relationship and understanding between the two. As I understand it, even during the Napoleonic era there was a fairly thriving interaction between Engand and France, at least in, for example, the scientific community. No? Pfly 05:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

"France... which remains our home from home" was meant to be shorthand for most of that. On the whole, the English and the French like each other's style, and the French and the Scottish get on even better. Many French things are chic in the UK, while the best British things are très snob in France. We don't, I'd say, understand each other very well, it takes some effort, and real political rivalries cause real tensions. The British, for obvious reasons, aren't so good at foreign languages as other Europeans are, while many of the French resent the progress of English as the European lingua franca, at the expense of French. So the two like each other more when an effort is made to speak the other's language. Xn4 06:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Why PicaSSo and not PicaSo?

SS is rather uncommon in Spain, why was the name of Picasso not Picaso? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.59.94.120 (talk) 13:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

According to this article, the name Picasso is of Italian origin. Marco polo 15:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

As, indeed, it says at Picasso (disambiguation).

This says his mother, Doña María Picasso y López was "from Andalusia and of Arabic descent". Presuambly "Picasso" was her father's (first) surname, and he was ultimately of Italian descent? I wonder where the Arabs come into it... -- !! ?? 16:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Arabs from Al-Andalus presumably. DuncanHill 16:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Presumably, although the Reconquista was getting on for 400 years earlier. -- !! ?? 16:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The irony is that Picasso's father's surname was Ruiz, and the galleries of the world would all have paintings by "Pablo Ruiz" had he not chosen to use his mother's name Picasso. Our article doesn't explain why he did that. -- JackofOz 22:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

He isn't alone, thousands of artists, writers, musicians, and performers of all kinds have preferred distinctive names to dull ones. Ruiz is a very humdrum Spanish name, while Picasso has more about it. Just think of the ballet dancer Margot Fonteyn, who began life as Peggy Hookham. Picasso at least used a name which was his. Xn4 01:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, I'm very well aware of the alternative names that many celebrities have adopted. I was just commenting that our article makes no note of the fact that he adopted a name other than his father's, or when and precisely why he did this. Maybe someone who has the facts and a citation can update it. -- JackofOz 21:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and just to put to rest a myth about Fonteyn. She was registered as Margaret Hookham, but was generally called "Peggy" by her family. -- JackofOz 22:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not unusual that a name or surname will continue an older spelling (for example 'ss' or 'ç'), long after it has been abandoned in general language. It also may be from an Andalusian dialect spelling. Steewi 03:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Bicasso they wanted to be different? Clarityfiend 05:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Spencer Perceval

Spencer Perceval was the only British prime minister to be assissinated. If he is memorable it is for that and nothing else. Is there any reason why he should be the forgotten prime minister? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.103.55 (talk) 14:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought that Edward Smith-Stanley, 14th Earl of Derby was "the forgotten prime minister". But I may not have remembered that correctly... 80.254.147.52 14:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't Bonar Law the Unknown Prime Minister? DuncanHill 15:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Why is he not remembered? For the simple reason that he was a not very memorable man, heading a not very memorable ministry at a not very memorable time. I can think of no better assessment of his premiership than that of Joyce Marlow, who said that his chief achievment was to survive as long as he did, passing a much stronger political inheritance to Lord Liverpool (Spencer Preceval, in H. V. Thal ed. The Prime Ministers, vol. 1, 1974). Clio the Muse 02:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Second and Third

What elements of German history during the Second Reich foreshadowed the Third? Thanks. Bryson Bill 14:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

This rather sweeping question begs for an essay from Clio, if she is still gracing the desk. As a stopgap, here is a modest response. The Third Reich self-consciously aimed to appropriate the traditions of the two earlier Reichs, as its very name suggests. The Nazis believed that the democratic interlude of the Weimar Republic was an aberration from German traditions of paternalistic autocracy, which the Nazis wished to restore. Obviously, the Second and Third Reichs shared an autocratic structure, more extreme in the case of the Third Reich. They both also rested to a fair extent on the political support of conservative plutocrats, both agrarian and industrial. While Jews actually made social advances during the Second Reich due in part to a strain of economic liberalism, the Second Reich also maintained the old German (Christian) tradition of anti-Semitism, and it was during the Second Reich that Germans began to embrace the scientific racism that later formed a basis for the Nazi party's tragic racist ideology. The culture of the Second Reich, like that of the Third Reich, was strongly militarist and imperialist.

Having drawn these parallels, however, I don't think that one can say that German history during the Second Reich really "foreshadowed" that of the Third Reich. Nothing in the Second Reich pointed inevitably toward the emergence of the Third Reich. On the contrary, the history of the Second Reich was one of gradual liberalization and the emergence of a strong socialist working-class movement. Marco polo 15:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

She graces, Marco; she graces! Also I have to say that I quite like your 'stopgap' and 'modest' response (ever so 'umble!), so much so that I really have not that much to add.

I am at present reading, amongst other things, France the Dark Years, 1940-1944, Julian Jackson's impressive study of Vichy and the German occupation. The author devotes over a hundred pages at the beginning of the book to explaining the pre-history of Vichy: to uncovering the trends in French history that lead to that particular political outcome. But then, like a magician, he conjurs it all away, by quite rightly pointing out that none of the patterns he has identified would have had any significance but for the French defeat in 1940.

So it is, too, with the Second Reich. In 1918, with the corpse on the table, the tempation is to look at the entrails for auguries of things to come. Yes, there are signs that point to a particular future, but there are just as many signs to suggest that things could have gone in a quite different direction. Beware of teleology; beware always of the Shirer school of history, reading backwards from consequences to causes. I personally always stress Arnold Toynbee's maxim for those setting out on historical investigation: avoid the trap built into all recorded history, the possible disproportionate over-emphasis imposed by future developments which were unknowable to those living through the period itself. There was no Sonderweg. There is little in the Second Reich that foretells Hitler. The old Fisher Thesis, motivated more by ideology than scholarship, is giving way to a far more nuanced approach; that a pluralistic and democratic society was beginning to emerge from under the cloak of Junker militarism. Hitler was not inevitable; he was born out of defeat, of a loss of historical direction. Clio the Muse 01:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Surely, Clio, you do not grace but rather muse? Algebraist 19:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I both muse and grace! Clio the Muse 23:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

statute of limitations

What is the statute of limitations for child endangerment in Kansas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by J69ss (talk • contribs) 17:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Rosina Bulwer-Lytton

I see from the page on Edward Bulwer-Lytton that his wife, Rosina, seems to have been declared insane for public denunciations of her husband. What's the story here?81.156.5.250 19:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Rosina and Bulwer-Lytton suffered a long and acrimonious break down in their marriage, both accusing the other of adultery. They separated in 1836, and in 1839 she published a book, Cheveley, or the Man of Honour, which included an obnoxious character based on her husband. Looking for evidence against her of adultery, Bulwer had Rosina followed. Eventually, in 1858, she went to a political meeting and accused her husband of cruelty and of adultery. Bulwer was able to get Rosina committed to a private asylum as insane, but after a few weeks she was released, following an inquiry by the Commissioners in Lunacy. Bulwer and his friends went on accusing Rosina of being crazy, melodramatic, a publicity-seeker and a drunk, all making every effort to discredit her. Bulwer even accused Rosina's mother, Anna Doyle Wheeler, who was an early feminist, of being mad, too. In 1880, after Bulwer's death, Rosina wrote a book about it all called A Blighted Life: a True Story. For more on this, see A Blighted Marriage: The Life of Rosina Bulwer Lytton, Irish beauty, satirist and tormented Victorian wife, 1802-1882 by David Lytton Cobbold. Xn4 02:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Her release from confinement was prompted, in the first instance, by public outcry. Bulwer-Lytton coined the phrase 'the pen is mighter than the sword'. It was Rosina who proved this to be true! Clio the Muse 02:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

This has had a latter-day resurgence on toilet walls as "the penis is mightier than the sword". -- JackofOz 21:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

A contention that no male, I suspect, will ever care to put to the test! Clio the Muse 01:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Psychology

What is the name of the psychological condition or cause whereby a bitch turns upon one of her litter, thinking that it is somehow not a properly-fitting part of the group, and kills it? – 91.104.6.104 19:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The behavior is described in the article Infanticide (zoology) (filial maternal infanticide), but I don't know what the animal-psychological condition causing it is called. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Hy Little - Lancaster

I am looking for any information you might have on a , Hy Little. I have a vintage clock with the name of, Hy Little , Lancaster. Wondering if he was a clock maker in Lancaster England. Thank you for your help. Please R.S.V.P. == <email removed> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.13.118.45 (talk) 20:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I would imagine the Hy means Henry, if so there was a jeweller's shop in Lancaster called "Henry Little's" which is now closed (gets a mention in [1]) Foxhill 22:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The concept of "war"

Why do we have the concept of "war" as something separate?

Why don't we treat an invading army more or less the same as we would treat any band of thugs doing similar damage?

How can there be such a thing as a "war crime"? Isn't war a crime? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.210.129.15 (talk) 21:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Without turning the reference desk into a soapbox, you may be interested in the concept of just war. — Lomn 21:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Not stepping on the soapbox either, but you might also be interested in number VI of the Nuremberg Principles which addresses the criminality of war under its first item, Crimes against peace, before War crimes:

(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;

(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).

---Sluzzelin talk 22:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, without also soapboxing, you might be also interested in reading casus belli. Azi Like a Fox 22:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey 207.210.129.15, that sounds like Petroleum V. Nasby's "solution" to the civil war -- if a member of Robert E. Lee's army shot at someone near Gettysburg, then the proper way to seek a remedy was to bring a lawsuit in the courts of Pennsylvania against the specific individual who fired that one particular shot. Doing anything more to oppose Lee's soldiers would be blatant warmongering, according to Nasby... AnonMoos 22:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

France-Russia

How was the relationship like between France and Russia in the 17th Century? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.54.187 (talk) 22:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

There was not much of a relationship between the two. Each was outside of the other's sphere of territorial interest. Russia was seen in western Europe as a remote and exotic land. However, during the 17th century, Russia was engaged in hostilities with two French allies: Sweden and the Ottoman Empire. Therefore, French rulers and diplomats would likely have been somewhat antagonistic toward Russia. Marco polo 01:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Why did French become the de facto language of the aristocracy in Russia? Corvus cornix 18:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It was the language of the educated elite-the international language-throughout Europe at the time, Corvus. And remember that as the Empire expanded in the days of Peter the Great a lot of the nobles were not Russian at all. Indeed, a great many of them were of German origin. Clio the Muse 03:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

But even in the time of War and Peace, in the Napoleonic Era, the aristocracy spoke French to each other. Corvus cornix 18:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they did. Also remember that Catherine the Great spoke French, and undoubtedly German, but very little Russian. But then, she had virtually no Russian blood, and certainly no Russian heritage. She was Prussian, and she only came to the throne via a coup while her husband Peter III was away. Being merely a tsar's consort, she had as much right to the throne as the humblest serf, i.e. zero. -- JackofOz 01:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, because it was still the language of the educated elite, not just in Russia. Frederick the Great, for example, preferred to speak French. Right into the twentieth century French remained the language of diplomacy. There is an amusing story connected with this. When Joachim von Ribbentrop was ambassador in London, generally a disastrous period of his career, he decided that he would stop using French, instructing his staff to issue invitations to diplomatic functions in German. So back the replies came from all of the other embassies and legations: in Turkish, in Arabic, in Serbo-Croat in Chinese and so on and so on. The embassy spent days in translations! Clio the Muse 02:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

L'Abbe Tramblay

Was there a person named L'Abbe Tramblay, who was a Jesuit member of the clergy, now assistant to the Bishop of Notre Dame in Paris but formerly a musketeer friend of D'Artagnan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.54.187 (talk) 22:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

This Tramblay is also fictional, but there's a French name which is almost always spelt 'Tremblay', and I've found several Abbés Tremblay since the 17th century. Xn4 03:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The most famous one being François Leclerc du Tremblay, the origin of the term "eminence grise". -- JackofOz 21:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)