Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2018 April 19

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.

April 19

Missing pages in Keith's Sanskrit Drama

The Archive.org copy of Keith's Sanskrit Drama was made from a physical copy (of the 1954 lithographic reprint of the 1924 original edition) that had two leaves (pages 16-17 and pages 204-205) missing. From the Google Books preview of the Motilal Banarsidass 1992 reprint I can see there are copies that do have pages 16-17. I can't check pages 204-205 there because they are not shown in the preview, but let's assume they're there too. Now the Motilal Banarsidass reprint doesn't say if it was made from the 1954 reprint or the 1924 original edition. Let's suppose it was made from the 1924 edition. If you happen to be within easy reach of a real paper copy of the book, in a university library for example, and it turns out it is the Oxford University Press 1954 reprint, could you check if those leaves are missing from that copy too? That way I'll know whether those leaves are missing from the 1954 reprint as a whole or only from the specific physical copy that was used for this particular scan that's at Archive.org. I can't imagine how and why two random leaves would go missing from one specific copy of a book, but you never know. I'm also interested to hear if you've got any experience trying to let Archive.org know there's a problem with a book in their collection. They do describe some sort of process for reporting problems at their FAQ. But have you ever seen a problem fixed after you reported it? Thanks. Basemetal 10:13, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

The Google preview has page 204 (beginning "IX VICAKHADATTA AND BHATTA NARAYANA" and ending "as compared with the last verse)" and also page 205 (beginning "The Mudraraksasa" and ending "regarded as very dubious." 92.19.169.232 (talk) 16:29, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. It looks like the Google preview depends on the customer. For me the preview says: "Pages 180 to 413 are not shown in this preview". Are you able to view the whole book without any gap? Maybe it depends on where you are. But why? This 1924 book should clearly not be under copyright anywhere and Motilal Banarsidass can't possibly hold any copyright to it. So why is the preview restricted for some people (and not for others)? It's a mystery to me. Time to get onto a VPN. If I used Tor, would that hide my real IP address from Google and replace it with an IP address from a location of my choosing? Basemetal 17:02, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the author died in 1944. It would be quite an undertaking for Google to change its preview parameters whenever copyright on its digitisations runs out. 92.19.169.232 (talk) 17:53, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

A further obstacle is that copyright expires on different dates depending on which country the person viewing the book lives in. 92.19.169.232 (talk) 17:56, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

But you in England are able to view the whole book without any gap? Basemetal 18:36, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

The archive has other versions without the gaps. Playing around with search terms often works. Titles and authors are often mangled and misplaced.John Z (talk) 13:36, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Extremely useful advice for now and in the future. I'd just followed the first link Google presented to me. Had no idea Archive.org may have several copies. Thanks a lot. Basemetal 11:42, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

How do the new names given to a newcomer to a religious order (Catholic and Buddhist) dealt with by modern governments?

In the past, a Catholic monastery or Buddhist temple was probably an isolated building somewhere. But nowadays, with modern governments controlling all the territories, doesn't that mean that modern governments actually have power over the monasteries? Would the national governments even care about the new names given in the monasteries, or do they just care about the members' full legal names? Or has this practice been discontinued in the modern era, and people just use their legal names instead, while socially, they may or may not use a different name? SSS (talk) 12:52, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

In the U.S., there is no legal barrier to official name changes, it's purely regulatory. You just file some paperwork; it's no different to change your name for religious, personal, or other reason as it is for people to change their names when they marry (such as when a woman takes her husband's surname). The U.S. government just wants the form filled out and their fee. They don't care otherwise what you call yourself, or how you change your name. No approval is needed. As it says at Name change for the U.S. "Usually a person can adopt any name desired for any reason. As of 2009, 46 states allow a person legally to change names by usage alone, with no paperwork, but a court order may be required for many institutions (such as banks or government institutions) to officially accept the change...Applicants may be required to give a reasonable explanation for wanting to change their names. A fee is generally payable, and the applicant may be required to post legal notices in newspapers to announce the name change." That's about it. --Jayron32 12:58, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I didn't mean a name change. The person's birth name, familial name, full personal name, full legal name, and religious name may all be used, but just by different persons in different situations. This doesn't mean one replaces the other. I just want to know whether this religious name in the modern world conflicts with the full legal name, or whether it is just a side name that the government doesn't need to know. Do national governments even care about non-legal names? SSS (talk) 13:23, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

In the US, a person can conduct business under an alias, as long as it isn't used for the purpose of deception. Familiar examples are stage names and noms de plume. A perfect example is your userid, SuperSuperSmarty. Even though this most likely is not the name that appears on your birth certificate or driver's license, the copyright licence you granted by submitting your post is perfectly valid. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:31, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

So, the national government usually doesn't care about non-legal names. They don't have to be registered by the government as additional identification of the individual, but they do have to be honest and non-deceptive, at least in the community. SSS (talk) 14:08, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

That's about it; you can call yourself anything you want. If you want your friends and associates to call you whatever, you can do that. So long as you don't perpetrate a fraud with it, and continue to use your documented official name on official matters, no one cares. --Jayron32 20:22, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

So, why do people change their legal names (i.e. marriage and stuff)? In society, can't they just use their new married names, while as far as the government is concerned, they keep using their original legal names, even though no one calls them that in society at all. The legal names are entirely for legal and professional purposes (employers may require full legal names), but current personal names may be placed on business cards. SSS (talk) 21:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

So you're wanting to ban caffeine and also to control how people use their names? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:43, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Never mind. SSS (talk) 00:45, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

They change their legal names because they want to. I'm quite confused as to how that is hard to understand. If you want to know why they changed their name legally, you can ask them. I've never changed my name, so I can't answer to that. --Jayron32 10:51, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I'd say "administrative" rather than "regulatory", fwiw. —Tamfang (talk) 04:05, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Do we have an article on the circumstance where people joining religious orders change their names? It seems a bit different than the more usual name-change situation. For example, when Jorge Mario Bergoglio started calling himself Pope Francis. IS he still Jorge Mario Bergoglio in any legal way? How about folks with lesser titles, such as those in a monastery? Matt Deres (talk) 14:13, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

My question wasn't directed at a name change, but a name addition. Obviously, family members would not address the person the same way as people in the monastery. Since old mom and pop were likely the ones who gave the full name to the person, they were likely the ones who held the person's birth certificate (since the birth certificate is a legal document, it will probably use the legal name, which is based on the full personal name) for a long time, and they might call their child by some variant of the personal name, which might be the same as the legal name, including the given name (name of the individual) and family name (or patronym). SSS (talk) 15:19, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

According to this [1] [2] [3], the pope had a new Argentinian passport and ID card issued and you can see photos showing they're still in his old name. The claim is made there he intended to use the passport to travel like an ordinary citizen, this interview [4] claims he still did in 2017. I have to say though, although the pope asked for no special treatment with these documents, I strongly suspect that photo would be rejected in the biometric era for an NZ passport due to the angle of the face etc. Interesting this source [5] says no hat without mentioning any allowance for religious headgear. Other non official sources claims similar [6] [7], but at least one source does claim a religious exemption [8]. But I'm not sure how reliable these are, or whether they mostly just use standard stuff and hope for the best. (And they may never be tested if few people seeking Argentinian passports use them, or they just use their own rules.) Nil Einne (talk) 05:43, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Just to correct a bit in the OP's question. The early monasteries used to be very well connected with the nobility and people generally. They ran the schools and it would be where one would go for somebody to help design and build a harbor or help with a problem farming for example. Dmcq (talk) 10:26, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

In death notices of nuns it's very common to see the deceased named as, eg."Sister Mary Aloysius Flanagan". In life, she would have been simply "Sister Mary Aloysius", and many/most of the lay people she came into contact with would have had no idea of the Flanagan part. It makes a return for the death notice. Whether that's just to distinguish her from other sisters named Mary Aloysius, or whether it actually remained her legal name all along, I don't know. I do know that when nuns take their final vows, they go through a ceremony where they become "Brides of Christ", and wear a white wedding dress for the occasion. Traditionally, new brides drop their maiden surname and take their husband's name (although I'm not suggesting all nuns become "Mrs Jesus Christ"). Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:17, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Source of quote

In My Utmost for His Highest by Oswald Chambers on April 19th he uses “retired sphere of the leasts”. I wonder what is the original source? Thanks so much Opfella (talk) 14:48, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

[Fixed your formatting] Courtesy link to My Utmost for His Highest. From a cursory googling of the term, I see no evidence that Chambers took it from an earlier source, so (pending information to the contrary) we might assume that he coined it himself. In This piece he uses it and more-or-less explains what he means by it. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.218.14.51 (talk) 15:03, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Is it known when did Chambers wrote that? (book was published posthumously) I find the same phrase used in an 1890 book by James John Garth Wilkinson: page 220 142.150.29.147 (talk) 15:15, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

The Soul is Form and doth the Body make: The Heart and the Lungs, the Will and The Understanding by James John Garth Wilkinson, London, 1890. On page 220:

"The main business of physiology, and above all of psychology, is to see the organs in their places, to see them alive and at work, to demand their totality, and always as a functional part of the whole man,—body, soul, and spirit. His biggest organs are his atoms: in reason they are no fields for cutting up. Keeping this steadfastly in view, sufficient light may come out of it to the retired sphere of leasts; for in man the leasts are the greatest and the total over again".

No idea what it means, but it does seem to predate the writings of Oswald Chambers, who would have been 15 or 16 years-old in 1890. Alansplodge (talk) 16:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)