text:
Talk:Nathaniel Hawthorne

Paragraph 6
OK, I intend to make some changes to the descriptions in paragraph 6 as soon as RickK stops reverting them. There are glaring inaccuracies. For example, "The Blithedale Romance" is not about an elixir of life. Et cetera.

What do you say, RickK? Bds_yahoo — Preceding unsigned comment added by George Kaplan (talk • contribs) 23:09, 26 April 2004 (UTC)

Franklin Pierce
Out of curiosity, is Hawthorne's friend named Franklin Pierce the same as the 14th President of th U.S.? They graduated from Bowdoin within a year of eachother. If so he should be linked. -bmortimer — Preceding undated comment added 16:39, 5 March 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes, see http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleid.15456/article_detail.asp and http://www.eldritchpress.org/nh/lfp.html.
 * -- Gruepig 04:07, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sophia
The last revision by 68.223.13.132 greatly changes the picture of the Hawthorne's marriage. Can anyone provide a source for the claim that they had a "troublesome marriage"? Is there anything to suggest this in Sophia's journal or letters? For what it's worth, Melville seemed to think they had a happy relationship; he described their family as "the loveliest family he ha[d] ever met with, or anyone can possibly imagine" and says that Sophia "quite literally worshipped" Nathaniel. (Parker, Hershel. Herman Melville: A Biography) -- Gruepig 03:55, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * I wouldn't hesitate a whole lot about reverting out-of-left-field edits by anonymous IPs with only one edit to their "name" - if he has a source, it is up to him to return with it --JimWae 04:45, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)

 * Reverting. -- Gruepig 17:28, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dying
What is this about Hawthorne dying while on a trip to the mountains? I just read an article in the New Yorker(March 14? issue) on his relationship with Sophia and her older sister Elizabeth. The article mentions Hawthorne dying, but I got the impression that he was sick for a while at his home with his wife when he died.

Also mentioned was a biography on Elizabeth Peabody. I'll see if I can find a copy of it... — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordBertrand (talk • contribs) 03:36, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I found a site that states Hawthorne died while on a trip to the mountains, it is http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/hawthorn.htm... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.9.139.1 (talk) 03:33, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Photos
Moved here from User_talk:JimWae
 * Hello. I noticed you changed back the Nathaniel Hawthorne image which size I had modified from "thumbnail" to "frame". I did so in the first place so that the picture, in its real, smaller size, would look much better than this and not appear with such a low resolution. I understand from your edit summary that you fixed the picture so it would be the same size as the others. I also saw that you had previously arranged the three images so that they are all aligned to the right. I do understand that this arrangement (same size and aligned to the right) makes the whole article look better, but I still think it's unfortunate that the first picture looks so bad when it is bigger.

 * I have a suggestion. In my opinion, the article contains too many pictures for its size. The second image is a portrait that is almost identical to Hawthorne's appearance on the last picture . That illustration is also the one that was added the most recently on the article. I think the second picture should be removed from the article. The first picture could be changed to its normal size, and be aligned to the right of the text at the top of the article. The third picture could be aligned to the right or to the left in the "Writings" section. I think the article would look good that way. What do you think? -- Audrey 5 July 2005 05:15 (UTC)

I was wondering why you changed it - I never noticed lack of resolution, but now see it a bit. Maybe there's a better photo with higher resolution http://www.ibiblio.org/eldritch/nh/hawthorne.html has the same photo in higher resolution - but less contrast --JimWae 2005 July 5 05:48 (UTC)

I uploaded a better resolution one myself. Better? --JimWae 2005 July 5 06:05 (UTC)

 * Ah, yes. This looks better. Thanks Jim. :) --Audrey 6 July 2005 00:00 (UTC)

The Way people saw it
This section showed up yesterday, without any mention of it in discussion. I'm just going to delete it, if no one minds. It's uncited, unformatted, ungrammatical, and obviously unfactual. Check the revision history if you want to see it in its full badness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.247.209.234 (talk) 17:35, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Further Information
I'm removing the further information section. It's only a sentence or so long and is simply an assertion about Hawthorne's writing and personal philosophy (with several typos including in the section header). If it can be fleshed out and sourced it can certainly be added back.--Ahpsp 15:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Category
Shouldn't there be a category for Nathaniel Hawthorne's writings? Maybe Category:Nathaniel Hawthorne writings? Nareek 13:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Information discrepency
The current wikipedia article states "Hawthorne wrote in the comparative obscurity of what he called his "owl's nest" in the family home." According to "Elements of Literature: Fifth Course Literature of the United States. Edited by Kathleen Daniel. Published by Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. 1997. it was actually known as the "dismal chamber", can someone with editor rights please include this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.131.130.132 (talk) 19:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

 * The "owl's nest" reference is from a letter Hawthorne wrote to Longfellow on June 4, 1837. From this same letter derives the footnoted quote in this article: "I have not lived, but only dreamed about living."  I found this letter in The Viking Portable Hawthorne, edited by Malcolm Cowley. For an online source, see this page from Nathaniel Hawthorne by George Woodberry, where it is quoted.    Here is the passage in question: "Not to burden you with my correspondence, I have delayed a rejoinder to your very kind and cordial letter, until now. It gratifies me that you have occasionally felt an interest in my situation; but your quotation from Jean Paul about the 'lark's nest' makes me smile. You would have been much nearer the truth if you had pictured me as dwelling in an owl's nest; for mine is about as dismal, and like the owl I seldom venture abroad till after dusk." In that same letter, a little further down on the linked page, Hawthorne again uses the image: "I intend in a week or two to come out of my owl's nest, and not return till late in the summer." While looking for an online source of this "owl's nest" phrase, I found that he used it later in life as well.  In Julian Hawthorne's biography of his parents, Nathaniel Hawthorne and His Wife (1884), the following link to Chapter 3, Part I includes a quotation from what Julian Hawthorne described as "the only trustworthy autobiographical fragment" of Hawthorne "known to be extant," which was "comprised in the following few paragraphs which he wrote out for his friend Stoddard, who was compiling an 'article' on him for the National Review, 1853." Here is the relevant passage from that autobiographical piece: "From the press of Munroe & Co., Boston, in the year 1837, appeared 'Twice-Told Tales.' Though not widely successful in their day and generation, they had the effect of making me known in my own immediate vicinity; insomuch that, however reluctantly, I was compelled to come out of my owl's nest and lionize in a small way. Thus I was gradually drawn somewhat into the world, and became pretty much like other people. My long seclusion had not made me melancholy or misanthropic, nor wholly unfitted me for the bustle of life; and perhaps it was the kind of discipline which my idiosyncrasy demanded, and chance and my own instincts, operating together, had caused me to do what was fittest." It would appear, then, that Hawthorne referred to his room as both an owl's nest, as in the above quotations, and as a dismal chamber, as referenced by yourself.  - InvisibleSun 22:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

 * It might be good to use both phrases, as you get a better sense of what Hawthorne meant from both. Nareek 00:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Pornographic stories
I am unable to find substantiation for the following comments:
 * "Prior to gaining fame, Hawthorne wrote several highly sexual and pornographic stories for sailors under an assumed name (this writing style would emerge in later stories as shown by Lora Romero's article, "Homosocial Romance: Nathaniel Hawthorne")."

The trufulness of this seems unlikely (the Romero article is not available for free online), but it has remained unchanged for a few days so it is possible I am wrong to think it is inaccurate. Could someone please provide a reference or remove this passage. Philip Cross 17:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

 * This was just part of some ongoing vandalism to the article. It's now deleted. - InvisibleSun 18:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

InvisibleSun, besides being a stupid name, has displayed a terrible understanding of Nathaniel Hawthorne's writing career. The fact that InvisibleSun would consider acurate updates to wikipedia as vandalism is a sign that InvisibleSun should be banned from wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.186.130.128 (talk) 18:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly, it turns out the original statement is true (Furthermore, prior to gaining fame, Hawthorne wrote several highly sexual and pornographic stories for sailors under an assumed name) as shown in the following article: "Pornography and the New Puritans" http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/06/15/lifetimes/25665.html--Hawthorne122 12:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

 * The above link doesn't work. Here is the link provided in the footnote by the editor(s) making this claim.  The article, "Pornography and the New Puritans," is by John Irving.  The following shows, in its entirety, all that Irving says regarding Hawthorne: "But lest you think I'm being paranoid about the iniquities and viciousness of our times, I'd like you to read a description of Puritan times. It was written in 1837 -- more than 150 years ago -- and it describes a scene in a Puritan community in Massachusetts that you must imagine taking place more than 350 years ago. This is from a short story by Nathaniel Hawthorne called "Endicott and the Red Cross," which itself was written more than 10 years before Hawthorne wrote "The Scarlet Letter." This little story contains the germ of the idea for that famous novel about a woman condemned by Puritan justice to wear the letter A on her breast. But Hawthorne, obviously, had been thinking about the iniquities and viciousness of early New England morality for many years. "Please remember, as you read what Nathaniel Hawthorne thought of the Puritans, that the Puritans are not dead and gone. We have many new Puritans in our country today; they are as dangerous to freedom of expression as the old Puritans ever were. An especially sad thing is, a few of these new Puritans are formerly liberal-thinking feminists." Irving then quotes from the story.  Here is the quote in its entirety. "In close vicinity to the sacred edifice [ the meeting-house ] appeared that important engine of Puritanic authority, the whipping-post -- with the soil around it well trodden by the feet of evil doers, who had there been disciplined. At one corner of the meeting-house was the pillory, and at the other the stocks; . . . the head of an Episcopalian and suspected Catholic was grotesquely incased in the former machine; while a fellow-criminal, who had boisterously quaffed a health to the king, was confined by the legs in the latter. Side by side, on the meeting-house steps, stood a male and a female figure. The man was a tall, lean, haggard personification of fanaticism, bearing on his breast this label, -- A WANTON GOSPELLER, -- which betokened that he had dared to give interpretations of Holy Writ unsanctioned by the infallible judgment of the civil and religious rulers. His aspect showed no lack of zeal . . . even at the stake. The woman wore a cleft stick on her tongue, in appropriate retribution for having wagged that unruly member against the elders of the church; and her countenance and gestures gave much cause to apprehend that, the moment the stick should be removed, a repetition of the offence would demand new ingenuity in chastising it. "The above-mentioned individuals had been sentenced to undergo their various modes of ignominy, for the space of one hour at noonday. But among the crowd were several whose punishment would be life-long; some, whose ears had been cropped, like those of puppy dogs; others, whose cheeks had been branded with the initials of their misdemeanors; one, with his nostrils slit and seared; and another, with a halter about his neck, which he was forbidden ever to take off, or to conceal beneath his garments. Methinks he must have been grievously tempted to affix the other end of the rope to some convenient beam or bough. There was likewise a young woman, with no mean share of beauty, whose doom it was to wear the letter A on the breast of her gown, in the eyes of all the world and her own children. And even her own children knew what that initial signified. Sporting with her infamy, the lost and desperate creature had embroidered the fatal token in scarlet cloth, with golden thread and the nicest art of needlework; so that the capital A might have been thought to mean Admirable, or anything rather than Adulteress. "Let not the reader argue, from any of these evidences of iniquity, that the times of the Puritans were more vicious than our own." Irving then adds a comment to this: "In my old-fashioned opinion, Mr. Hawthorne sure got that right." And that's all there is about Hawthorne.  Nothing about Hawthorne writing pornography, with or without a pseudonym. Nothing about sailors, either.  This, in short, is just the continuation of vandalism by means of a hoax. - InvisibleSun 15:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

When Mars Attacks
Is this reference a spoof? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Adf3comcast (talk • contribs) 15:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

I have some theories
I have some theories that I have made up regarding Nathaniel Hawthorne, and I wish to air them in the section entitled "Theories". I ask that 2-3 Wikipedians sign on to these conjectures so that they will have a sufficient number of believers to merit inclusion under the obviously high standards used thus far.

1.) Although Nathaniel Hawthorne's works are commonly presumed to have been written by Nathaniel Hawthorne, space aliens wrote them. 2.) Franklin Pierce and Nathaniel Hawthorne were the same person. Think about it. 3.) A complex theory, still in development, involving a menage a trois between Sophia Peabody, Nathaniel Hawthorne, and Franklin Pierce

Affix your name below to signal your belief in the above theories. Thank you for any help. Bill Oaf 10:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Navigation Box
I created a navigation box for Hawthorne based on the one for Edgar Allan Poe. It's not perfect, but it's a start. Unless other editors think it's unnecessary, I will start adding it to the bottom of all the articles on Hawthorne's works. Midnightdreary 15:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

DKE Reference
The article states that Hawthorn attended college from 1821 - 1825 and joined DKE while he was there. The DKE article says DKE was founded at Yale in 1844 which is 19 years after Hawthorne graduates.

Selhini 05:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

 * According to this DKE link, the chapter at Bowdoin (where Hawthorne went to college) wasn't founded until 1844. Hawthorne's son Julian became a member of DKE while at Harvard (see this link to his memoirs, where Part III has a subtitle "Football — Initiation into Delta Kappa Epsilon.")  Perhaps a confusion of father and son? - InvisibleSun 23:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Sounds like it to me! I've removed the sentence. Thanks to Selhini for catching that and to InvisibleSun for doing some legwork. This just goes to show that this article really needs to be cleaned up and fully referenced! --Midnightdreary 00:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Poe criticism
Twice now, different editors have added that Poe's criticism of Hawthorne was in part due to his opium use. Besides that the source cited at the end of the sentence doesn't support it, it's not NPOV and possibly original research. Of course, what really should keep it out of the article is that it's now understood that Poe was not an opium addict (and probably not even a user). So, please don't add that information again. --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Criticism section
Currently, everything written in the criticism section is actually PRAISE. Either the title or the content should be changed, you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.247.6.167 (talk) 23:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Well, "criticism" does encompass both the good and the bad. Certainly, the section can be expanded. --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Poe was innacurate about his assessment of Hawthorne. Poe used opium.

Therefore, Poe's use of opium was the cause of his criticism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.147.229.45 (talk) 14:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

 * Poe did not use opium. That's a myth that's spread by 7th grade English teachers. Sorry to disappoint. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

um, the problem in this section is imho rather that it presents only contemporary views. Henry James should be given much more room here - and where are all the great 20th century AmLit scholars? Where's Matthiessen? Or Fiedler, Feidelson, Irving Howe...? --Janneman (talk) 22:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

 * So, help out and find them and add them, so long as they are sourced. Although, personally, I think contemporary views are more relevant. 24.3.53.171 (talk) 16:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Fine, let's cut out everything noncontemporary on, say, Emily Dickinson and Moby Dick...--Janneman (talk) 19:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Whoa, settle down for a second and assume good faith. No one was suggesting removing anything from anywhere. --Midnightdreary (talk) 23:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Possible discrepancy in engagement length
Does it bother anybody else that the Marriage and family section reads: " . . he had become engaged in 1836 to . . . Sophia Peabody . . After 3 years of engagement, Hawthorne married Sophia Peabody on July 9, 1842 . ."  If somebody can verify the dates, he/she should correct the text. Thanks in advance.Raymondwinn (talk) 16:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

 * I'll look into it, probably not for a few days though. My guess is that someone came in and changed the date as a subtle form of vandalism. --Midnightdreary (talk) 21:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Mellow?
Over all a very good paper... I have one question. You never gave any information on Mellow. You used information from him/her but never told the name of the book or first name, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.139.230.251 (talk) 18:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

McFarland?
same problem with McFarland... am I just missing something? hannah.joy. (talk) 00:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC) (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.139.230.251 (talk) 18:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

McFarland and Mellow... does anyone know who they are and what the books were that they wrote? hannah.joy. (talk) 00:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.139.230.251 (talk) 18:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

 * You need to scroll down! See Nathaniel Hawthorne. --Midnightdreary (talk) 02:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

 * Thanks! That's helpful... :D 69.139.230.251 (talk) 17:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

"Literary styles and themes"
This section is much too cursory for an author of Hawthorne's stature. The section does not delve into his novels in any detail nor does it really explain his writing style. Two sentences are insufficient to explain this! Also, the section does not even refer to Hawthorne's famous short stories. Awadewit (talk) 03:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

 * As a source, I would recommend starting with The Cambridge Companion to Hawthorne. In the back of the book, there is a "Selected bibliography" that will guide you to important scholarship on Hawthorne. Awadewit (talk) 20:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

 * I've got all the sources, just don't have the time. This is probably my least favorite of the GAs I've done. Anyone out there willing to collaborate? --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Boston Custom House
Standard sources such as Encylopedia Britannica and Oxford Companion to American Literature say he worked in the Boston Custom House in 1839-40. What is the evidence, taken from Miller's biography, that he began there in January 1817?

Bamber Gascoigne (talk) 15:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

 * Not sure there is any evidence at all that he started working there at age 12. But the article says that he worked there beginning in 1839. Where did you see 1817? --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

 * Apologies - 1817 a mistyping of 1837. The sentence in question reads 'Hawthorne was offered an appointment as weighter and gauger at the Boston Custom House at a salary of $1,500 a year, which he accepted on January 17, 1837'. This seemingly authoritative source http://www.hawthorneinsalem.org/Life&Times/BiographicalInfo/BrookFarm/Introduction.html gives the date of his starting work as January 11, 1839. I imagine that 1837 in the Wikipedia article is, like my 1817, a mistyping of 1839. And in more detail I suspect January 11 may be right too.

 * Bamber Gascoigne (talk) 18:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

 * Looks like you've got it, it was a typo that goes, way, way back (I checked back as far as November 2008). It's fixed now, confirmed with the Miller source. --Midnightdreary (talk) 20:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

 * Thanks Bamber Gascoigne (talk) 11:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Ambiguous sentence
In the very first sentence of this paragraph: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathaniel_Hawthorne#Marriage_and_family

The pronouns are unclear. "...that he would get married before him." This ambiguity caused me a good deal of confusion until I realized that I had understood the pronoun-antecedent link incorrectly. If someone qualified to do so could fix that error, it would make this article a bit more informative. Thank-you.

Sincerely, A grateful Wikipedia user —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.187.73.154 (talk) 20:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Sexual Orientation
I have added a "citation needed" to the sentence in the lead that says, "Nathaniel was also a homosexual." It was not cited and the fact did not recur again in the article. Does anyone know whether this is true or not? Whether or not it is true, I don't think it belongs in the lead.... Can anyone help?

HCOtis (talk) 19:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)HCOtis, 4/20/2010

 * It's vandalism. If something like that is not referenced, it should be removed and stay removed. Thanks. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 19:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Name "Hawthorne"
The lead paragraph states that he changed his name to dissociate himself from his ancient ancestor John Hathorne. I find that speculative, and original research. I have tagged it, and the source should be cited right where I put the tag. "Fairly well-known" is not how Wikipedia works. We work by the use of actual sources which readers can verify. The source provided does not state what the article is claiming that it states. Please quote the exact words the source uses. "Well-known fact" is not a sufficient source. His signature is not a source for whether he changed it as opposed to anyone else, and it's not a source for why he might have changed it. Speculation or claims of why he or anyone else changed it are original research and an exact quote from a source needs to be used to back up a claim of that sort. Wjhonson (talk) 12:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

 * According to WP:LEDE, editors should balance the need to cite in the lede with redundancy of sources. The information is already sourced so let's aim for a new one, bearing in mind there has always been some discrepancy as to when the change was finally made.

 * "Hawthorne was definitely haunted by his Calvinist heritage and he added the 'w' to his surname around 1827 to disassociate himself from his tainted relatives." -From the introduction to Hawthorne's Haunts in New England (2008) by John Hardy Wright
 * "But, soon after he reached the age of twenty-one in 1825, he changed the spelling of his name from 'Hathorne' to 'Hawthorne' in what must have been a declaration of independence... 'The spirit of my Puritan ancestors was mighty in me,' he declared." -from the Biographical introduction to A Historical Guide to Nathaniel Hawthorne (2001), edited by Larry J. Reynolds
 * From a footnote referring to the spelling: "Hawthorne was still using the old spelling when he inscribed his name [in 1825]... The earliest appearance of the Hawthorne signature is 1827." - From Hawthorne in His Times (1980) by James R. Mellow
 * "...the author changed the spelling after graduating from Bowdoin..." -From Salem is My Dwelling Place (1991) by Edwin Haviland Miller
 * Hope that helps. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

 * Also, please clarify: Is the question regarding whether or not Hawthorne changed his own name (which was the original purpose mentioned in the edit summary which added the fact tag) or his motivations for doing so? I think I can more easily address this if I know for sure. For example, I can assure you that no one on Wikipedia is speculating or providing original research on the connection with his ancestors; if you're suggesting published Hawthorne scholars are too speculative, well, they all seem to agree on that speculation. It is, again, fairly well-known in the world of Hawthorne (this source even begins with "Everyone knows...") and has never been questioned so far as I know. I'm not trying to use that prior knowledge as a "source", as you seem to suggest above (nor did anyone use his signature as a source!), but only to justify why at least two editors were taken aback by the request (according to policy, which you well know, ledes only need additional sourcing for information likely to be challenged; that's what surprised us, I think). --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

That Hawthorne changed the spelling of his name *in order to* distance himself from his remote ancestor is speculation. That one author *claims* this without source, is not, in my opinion sufficient evidence that it is a fact we need repeat. I would allow a claim that "one author claims the reason he did this was to...", but to claim it as a fact in the lead is undue weight. Hawthorne himself never states why he did it, other biographers merely mention it in passing, or mention it as a whim or some kind. That's how it should be presented, imho.Wjhonson (talk) 17:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

 * Now that I know your specific concern (which is different from the initial concern you noted) I'll find better attribution. The one author I quoted was not making a giant leap; generally speaking, scholars agree on this point and there seems to be little dispute about it. What we need to do here is reflect scholarship, so I think it's perfectly fine to make the statement (though, perhaps, it could be simplified in the lede, if that's part of the concern here). If you're interested, the original source, from which this is all based, is Julian Hawthorne, whose published biography of his father made the connection as a statement of fact long ago. --Midnightdreary (talk) 18:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The citation for this explanation for the name change is Hawthorne in Concord by McFarland, pg 18. I have looked at pg 18 of this book and it says "Hawthorne -- or Hathorne as he still was' he would change the spelling of his name soon after leaving college-- has, in fact..." It does not give a reason for his changing the name at all. 76.67.108.222 (talk) 21:42, 19 January 2021 (UTC)diezyn

 * This discussion thread is over 10 years old. Wow. And, I agree, more accurate sourcing would be helpful. I noted above one such source: "Hawthorne was definitely haunted by his Calvinist heritage and he added the 'w' to his surname around 1827 to disassociate himself from his tainted relatives." -From the introduction to Hawthorne's Haunts in New England (2008) by John Hardy Wright. How does that sound? --Midnightdreary (talk) 02:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Rose Hawthorne
The name of daughter Rose should be highlighted and expanded, Rose Hawthorne Lathrop, which appears as a Wikipedia biography and the two entries should be linked. ˜˜˜˜ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wjpease (talk • contribs) 04:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

 * In the context of the article as it currently stands, there is no need to mention her married name; she was not married at the time of her father's death. There is, however, a full-length article on Rose, which is already linked by clicking on her name in this article. --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Journals
What journals/notebooks of his survive? What has been published? -96.237.4.73 (talk) 22:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

-96.237.4.73 (talk) 16:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Passages from the American Note-Books, by Nathaniel Hawthorne, edited by Sophia Hawthorne, 1868, Boston: Houghton, Mifflin, 1883 (volume IX of the 13-volume Riverside Edition of the Complete Works of Nathaniel Hawthorne). The American Note-Books of Nathaniel Hawthorne 1835-1853; includes 1841 entries made at Brook Farm.
 * Diary of a Marriage: Sophia (1809–1871) and Nathaniel Hawthorne (1804–1864). "Newlyweds Sophia Peabody and Nathaniel Hawthorne chose to keep a diary together, making a joint record of intimate life in their new home." 1842-1852

Disgraceful politics
"He thought that masters and slaves in the South lived together in comparative 'peace and affection': 'I have not…the slightest sympathy for the slaves,' he declared in 1851, 'or at least not half so much as for the laboring whites, who, I believe … are ten times worse off than the Southern negroes. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2013/jul/11/were-hawthornes-politics-disgraceful/ LudicrousTripe (talk) 20:14, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

 * ...And?
 * Are you suggesting this be added to the article, or are you merely editorializing by offering a modern opinion on an historic perspective? --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:29, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

A Wonder-Book for Boys and Girls
I changed the publication date for this book from 1852 to 1851 as per the Library of America, Benet's Reader's Encyclopedia of American Lit, and the copyright page of the book itself as seen here: http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=rbc3&fileName=rbc0001_2003holmes00414page.db&recNum=13 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.81.14.25 (talk) 00:03, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The Hawthorne-Melville friendship
Editors of Hawthorne's page may find useful material in the few paragraphs I just added to flesh out the H-M friendship at Herman Melville, keyed to Robertson-Lorant's Melville biography. It's inevitably from a Melvillean point of view, but still you may find something useful there. Feel free to use it, and to ask me any information about the sources the book uses.MackyBeth (talk) 17:44, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Edits on paragraph "Critics have applied...."
I took the liberty of boldly editing the rich paragraph starting "Critics have applied..." in Nathaniel Hawthorne.

It struck me as disproportionately long, especially for biographical article; at nearly 500 words, it was itself longer than most of the other whole sections. It also contained unclear or technical language: "figurations of transformative potential," "potentiality as agency of transformation"; WP:Peacock ("stalwart") or unencyclopedic: "cynosural women... who serve as unambiguous allegorical foci..."; "protagonistas" (not in any of my five dictionaries or online); "unpardonably sinned-against". Major judgments were unsourced.

Rupkatha Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies in the Humanities is a reputable publication held by a number of libraries, but the reference to article was evidently placed there by himself. It was removed (at least twice) by per WP:COI September 1, 2014. It was finally replaced by L.O Gabriel, who also inserted Splendora into the Stephen Crane article in October 2014 here

For parallel and perhaps congruent editing see: L.O. Gabriel User Contributions and Anthony Splendora User Contributions. Their contributions are only to these two articles. ch (talk) 05:41, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nathaniel Hawthorne. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080604212605/http://library.stanford.edu/depts/spc/spc.html to http://library.stanford.edu/depts/spc/spc.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:23, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Criticism
An editor recently added a hidden note that the article's section on "Criticism" was an inappropriate title as it does not include any criticism. I'm looking at it and seeing there are critical responses from people like Melville, Poe, John Neal, Harold Bloom, et al. I'm curious what the editor thinks is lacking (unless that editor defines "criticism" only as negative?). I have reverted the hidden note as it seems so obviously inappropriate. --Midnightdreary (talk) 11:44, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

 * I support Midnightdreary's assessment here. The section could always be improved, but it's certainly not lacking in critical responses from relevant figures. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:11, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Whipple
I see Whipples scathing review of the scarlet letter tossed around quite a lot, but I don’t think it should be mentioned without contrasting it with the modern day fame it has achieved. A reader would get the impression that it’s literary significance is much more minute than it actually is. 2603:6010:11F0:3C0:4111:6F56:6969:3736 (talk) 00:35, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

 * "Tossed around quite a lot"? It's mentioned once. There is additional information about the book's literary merits and impact both here and on the article for The Scarlet Letter already. Can you clarify what your concern is? --Midnightdreary (talk) 12:29, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

English
What is the background of nathaniel hawthrone 112.198.112.143 (talk) 23:45, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you please be more specific about your question and how you are looking for us to improve this Wikipedia article? --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:40, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Nathaniel's younger sister
"Luisa" is mentioned in the article as the youngest sister, but when was she born? An article at https://streetsofsalem.com/2020/04/04/the-death-of-nathaniel-hawthornes-little-sister/ indicates her given names were "Maria Luisa" and that her birth date was 1802, which latter is actually when the older sister Elizabeth was born. Has anyone access to information about Maria Luisa, aside from her death by drowning in 1852? Myron (talk) 20:56, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Adding links
The Phillips Library digitized and released a significant chunk of their collection of primary source material created by Hawthorne and his wife Sophia at: https://pem.quartexcollections.com/collections/hawthorne-collection This includes copies of "The Spectator" as well as correspondence. Since I'm employed by the library, I believe I'm suppose to suggest this as an addition to the external links section, rather than add it myself. DigitizingArchives (talk) 19:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for putting your request on the talk page since you're an employee. There was already a link to Phillips Library but I replace it with the more specific link you provided. Victoria (tk) 20:01, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Nathaniel Hawthorne


text:
Kongo language

Kongo or Kikongo is one of the Bantu languages spoken by the Kongo people living in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), the Republic of the Congo, Gabon, and Angola. It is a tonal language. The vast majority of present-day speakers live in Africa. There are roughly seven million native speakers of Kongo in the above-named countries. An estimated five million more speakers use it as a second language.

Historically, it was spoken by many of those Africans who for centuries were taken captive, transported across the Atlantic, and sold as slaves in the Americas. For this reason, creolized forms of the language are found in ritual speech of Afro-American religions, especially in Brazil, Cuba, Puerto Rico, Dominican Republic, Haiti, and Suriname. It is also one of the sources of the Gullah language, which formed in the Low Country and Sea Islands of the United States Southeast. The Palenquero creole in Colombia is also related to Kong creole.

Geographic distribution
Kongo was the language of the Kingdom of Kongo prior to the creation of Angola by the Portuguese Crown in 1575. The Berlin Conference (1884-1885) among major European powers divided the rest of the kingdom into three territories. These are now parts of the DRC (Kongo Central and Bandundu), the Republic of the Congo, and Gabon.

Kikongo is the base for the Creole language Kituba, also called Kikongo de l'État and Kikongo ya Leta (French and Kituba, respectively, for "Kikongo of the state administration" or "Kikongo of the State").

The constitution of the Republic of the Congo uses the name Kituba, and Democratic Republic of the Congo uses the term Kikongo. Kituba (i.e. Kikongo ya Leta) is used as the term in the DRC administration. This can be explained by the fact that Kikongo ya Leta is often mistakenly called Kikongo (i.e. KiNtandu, KiManianga, KiNdibu, etc.).

Kikongo and Kituba are spoken in:
 * South of Republic of the Congo:
 * Kikongo (Yombe, Vili, Ladi, Sundi, etc.) and Kituba:
 * Kouilou,
 * Niari,
 * Bouenza,
 * Lékoumou,
 * south of Brazzaville,
 * Pointe-Noire,
 * Kikongo (Ladi, Kongo Boko, etc.):
 * Pool;
 * South-west of Democratic Republic of the Congo:
 * Kikongo (Yombe, Ntandu, Ndibu, Manyanga, etc.) and Kikongo ya Leta:
 * Kongo Central,
 * a part of Kinshasa,
 * Kikongo ya Leta:
 * Kwilu,
 * Kwango,
 * Mai-Ndombe,
 * far west Kasaï;
 * North of Angola:
 * Kikongo (Kisikongo, Zombo, Ibinda, etc.):
 * Cabinda,
 * Uíge,
 * Zaire,
 * north of Bengo and north of Cuanza Norte;
 * South-West of Gabon.
 * Kikongo (Vili):
 * Nyanga,
 * Ngounié

Presence in the Americas
Many African slaves transported in the Atlantic slave trade spoke Kikongo. Its influence can be seen in many creole languages in the diaspora, such as:
 * Brazil
 * Cupópia
 * Salto de Pirapora
 * Colombia
 * Palenquero
 * San Basilio de Palenque
 * Cuba
 * Habla Congo/Habla Bantu
 * None; liturgical language of the Afro-Cuban Palo religion.
 * Haiti
 * Haitian Creole
 * Haiti
 * Bahamas
 * Cuba
 * Dominican Republic
 * United States
 * Langaj
 * None; liturgical language of the Haitian Vodou religion.
 * Suriname
 * Saramaccan language
 * Boven Suriname
 * Brokopondo
 * Paramaribo
 * French Guiana
 * Netherlands
 * United States
 * Gullah
 * Gullah-Geechee Corridor (North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida)
 * Louisiana Creole
 * Louisiana; and neighboring states.

People
Prior to the Berlin Conference, the people called themselves "Bisi Kongo" (plural) and "Mwisi Kongo" (singular). Today they call themselves "Bakongo" (pl.) and "Mukongo" (sing.).

Writing

Kongo was the earliest Bantu language to be written in Latin characters. Portuguese created a dictionary in Kongo, the first of any Bantu language. A catechism was produced under the authority of Diogo Gomes, who was born in 1557 in Kongo to Portuguese parents and became a Jesuit priest. No version of that survives today.

In 1624, Mateus Cardoso, another Portuguese Jesuit, edited and published a Kongo translation of the Portuguese catechism compiled by Marcos Jorge. The preface says that the translation was done by Kongo teachers from São Salvador (modern Mbanza Kongo) and was probably partially the work of Félix do Espírito Santo (also a Kongo).

The dictionary was written in about 1648 for the use of Capuchin missionaries. The principal author was Manuel Robredo, a secular priest from Kongo (after he became a Capuchin, he was named Francisco de São Salvador). The back of this dictionary includes a two-page sermon written in Kongo. The dictionary has some 10,000 words.

In the 1780s, French Catholic missionaries to the Loango coast created additional dictionaries. Bernardo da Canecattim published a word list in 1805.

Baptist missionaries who arrived in Kongo in 1879 (from Great Britain) developed a modern orthography of the language.

American missionary W. Holman Bentley arranged for his Dictionary and Grammar of the Kongo Language to be published by the University of Michigan in 1887. In the preface, Bentley gave credit to Nlemvo, an African, for his assistance. He described "the methods he used to compile the dictionary, which included sorting and correcting 25,000 slips of paper containing words and their definitions." Eventually W. Holman Bentley, with the special assistance of João Lemvo, produced a complete Christian Bible in 1905.

The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights has published a translation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Fiote.

Standardisation
The work of English, Swedish and other missionaries in the 19th and 20th centuries, in collaboration with Kongo linguists and evangelists such as Ndo Nzuawu Nlemvo (or Ndo Nzwawu Nlemvo; Dom João in Portuguese) and Miguel NeKaka, marked the standardisation of Kikongo.

Linguistic classification
Kikongo belongs to the Bantu language family.

According to Malcolm Guthrie, Kikongo is in the language group H10, the Kongo languages. Other languages in the same group include Bembe (H11). Ethnologue 16 counts Ndingi (H14) and Mboka (H15) as dialects of Kongo, though it acknowledges they may be distinct languages.

Bastin, Coupez and Man's classification of the language (as Tervuren) is more recent and precise than that of Guthrie on Kikongo. The former say the language has the following dialects:

 * Kikongo group H16
 * Southern Kikongo H16a
 * Central Kikongo H16b
 * Yombe (also called Kiyombe) H16c
 * Fiote H16d
 * Western Kikongo H16d
 * Bwende H16e
 * Ladi (Lari) H16f
 * Eastern Kikongo H16g
 * Southeastern Kikongo H16h

NB:  Kisikongo is not the protolanguage of the Kongo language cluster. Not all varieties of Kikongo are mutually intelligible (for example, 1. Civili is better understood by Kiyombe- and Iwoyo-speakers than by Kisikongo- or Kimanianga-speakers; 2. Kimanianga is better understood by Kikongo of Boko and Kintandu-speakers than by Civili or Iwoyo-speakers).

Phonology
There is contrastive vowel length. /m/ and /n/ also have syllabic variants, which contrast with prenasalized consonants.
 * 1) The phoneme  can occur, but is rarely used.

Noun classes
Kikongo has a system of 18 noun classes in which nouns are classified according to noun prefixes. Most of the classes go in pairs (singular and plural) except for the locative and infinitive classes which do not admit plurals.

NB: Noun prefixes may or may not change from one Kikongo variant to another (e.g. class 7: the noun prefix ci is used in civili, iwoyo or ciladi (lari) and the noun prefix ki is used in kisikongo, kiyombe, kizombo, kimanianga,...).

Conjugation
NB: Not all variants of Kikongo have completely the same personal pronouns and when conjugating verbs, the personal pronouns become stressed pronouns (see below and/or the references posted).

Conjugating the verb (mpanga in Kikongo) to be (kuena or kuwena; also kuba or kukala in Kikongo) in the present:

Conjugating the verb (mpanga in Kikongo) to have (kuvua in Kikongo; also kuba na or kukala ye) in the present :

NB: In Kikongo, the conjugation of a tense to different persons is done by changing verbal prefixes (highlighted in bold). These verbal prefixes are also personal pronouns. However, not all variants of Kikongo have completely the same verbal prefixes and the same verbs (cf. the references posted). The ksludotique site uses several variants of Kikongo (kimanianga,...).

English words of Kongo origin
In addition, the roller coaster Kumba at Busch Gardens Tampa Bay in Tampa, Florida gets its name from the Kongo word for "roar".
 * The Southern American English word "goober", meaning peanut, comes from Kongo nguba.
 * The word funk, or funky, in American popular music has its origin, some say, in the Kongo word Lu-fuki.
 * The name of the Cuban dance mambo comes from a Bantu word meaning "conversation with the gods".
 * The word chimpanzee

Sample text
According to Filomão CUBOLA, article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Fiote translates to:
 * Bizingi bioso bisiwu ti batu bambutukanga mu kidedi ki buzitu ayi kibumswa. Bizingi-bene, batu, badi diela ayi tsi-ntima, bafwene kuzingila mbatzi-na-mbatzi-yandi mu mtima bukhomba.
 * "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."

Kongo learning materials

 * Cours de KIKONGO (1955) (French and Kongo language) par Léon DEREAU. Maison d'éditions AD. WESMAEL-CHARLIER, Namur; 117 pages.
 * Leçons de Kikongo par des Bakongo (1964) Eengenhoven - Louvain. Grammaire et Vocabulaire. 62 pages.
 * KIKONGO, Notions grammaticales, Vocabulaire Français – Kikongo – Néerlandais - Latin (1960) par A. Coene, Imprimerie Mission Catholique Tumba. 102 pages.
 * (1957) par Léon DEREAU, d'après le dictionnaire de K. E. LAMAN. Maison d'éditions AD. WESMAEL-CHARLIER, Namur. 60 pages.
 * Kongo language course : a course in the dialect of Zoombo, northern Angola = Maloòngi makíkoongo (1987) by Carter, Hazel and João Makoondekwa. Madison, WI : African Studies Program, University of Wisconsin—Madison.
 * Nominalisations en Kisikóngó (H16): les substantifs prédicatifs et les verbes-supports vánga, sala, sá et tá (faire) (2015). Luntadila Nlandu Inocente.
 * Grammaire du Kiyombe par R. P. L. DE CLERCQ. Edition Goemaere - Bruxelles - Kinshasa. 47 pages
 * Nkutama a Mvila za Makanda, Imprimerie Mission Catholique Tumba, (1934) par J. CUVELIER, Vic. Apostlique de Matadi. 56 pages (L'auteur est en réalité Mwene Petelo BOKA, Catechiste redemptoriste à Vungu, originaire de Kionzo.)
 * Dictionary and Grammar of the Kongo Language (1886) Bentley, William Holman. 718 pages.
 * Learn basic Kikongo (Mofeko) Omotola Akindipe and Moisés Kudimuena.
 * Leçons de kikongo (kintandu) par des Bakongo. (1964) Eegenhoven - Louvain. 61 pages or Leçons de kintandu par des Bakongo. (1964) Eegenhoven - Louvain. 61 pages

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Kongo language


text:
New Berlin

New Berlin is the name of several locations in the United States:

 * New Berlin, Illinois, a village in Sangamon County
 * New Berlin (town), New York
 * New Berlin (village), New York
 * New Berlin, Pennsylvania
 * New Berlin, Texas
 * New Berlin, Wisconsin
 * New Berlin Township, Sangamon County, Illinois
 * New Berlin, old name of North Canton, Ohio

title: New Berlin


text:
Al-Khayzuran

Al-Khayzuran bint Atta (الخيزران بنت عطاء) (died 789) was the wife of the Abbasid Caliph Al-Mahdi and mother of both Caliphs Al-Hadi and Harun al-Rashid. She maintained de facto influence from 775 to 789 during the reign of her husband and sons and is known for her immense influence on state affairs.

While not formally a ruler, al-Khayzuran was nevertheless the first woman in the history of Islam to rule de facto and was the first woman in the history of Muslims to have gold coins in her name. She became one of the most powerful women of her time under the name of her husband and sons, al-Mahdi, al-Hadi and al-Harun. During the reign of al-Mahdi, al-Khayzuran often appeared at the court when the caliph was present and also used great political power, and caliph sought her views on most matters before issuing orders.

Al-Khayzuran was also the first woman to have her own bureaucracy and court and accept petitions and the audience of officials and the people, and to command and forbid in the caliphate. Independent of the state treasury, she gained enormous wealth by having extensive trade relations with other countries. While al-Mahdi spent most of his time hunting and having fun, she, by influencing the court, was able to hold meetings in her house to run the caliphate. Even after his death, she continued to wield premier power and influence during her sons' time.

At the time of al-Mahdi's untimely death, al-Khayzuran in the capital (Baghdad) had already taken over government affairs and by hiding his death and paying the salaries of army officers, she secured the allegiance of the soldiers for her son al-Hadi as the new caliph. but al-Hadi opposed his mother in sharing and partnership unquestionable power in the caliphate, and al-Khayzuran killed him after severe disputes. She brought Harun al-Rashid to power. Unlike his brother, al-Harun did not oppose his mother and officially handed over all power to his mother and relied upon his mother's advice.

Life
Al-Khayzuran was from Jorash, near modern Bisha, Saudi Arabia. She was kidnapped from her home by a Bedouin who then sold her in a slave market near Mecca to Al-Mahdi during his pilgrimage. Officially it was illegal for Muslims to enslave Muslims, however all sources are nevertheless adamant that she was a slave, and to break the official rule barring the enslavement of Muslims was not an unusual in practice in that context.

Reign of Al-Mahdi
Al-Khayzuran was described as beautiful, intelligent and gifted. At that time the woman slaves of the harem, called jarya or jawari, were famed for educating themselves in music, singing, astrology, mathematics and theology in order to keep their master's interest, and Al-Khayzuran took regular lessons in fiqh from the most learned qadis.

She eventually became the favorite of Al-Mahdi. Upon his succession as caliph in 775, she convinced him to free and marry her; depriving his first wife, Princess Rayta (daughter of Caliph Al-Saffah) of her privileges as well as demoting her son from the position of heir to the throne. Instead, Al-Mahdi name Al-Khayzuran's sons as his heirs, despite the fact that it went against custom for the sons of a slave to be so named. As a queen, al-Khayzuran now held supreme authority over the caliph's harem; even the caliph had to behave in this area according to her wishes. She quickly took over the management of this complex institution, from social life to the planning of parties and ceremonies, including the management of the large sums of money that come in.

From that point on, she was the most powerful and influential woman in the empire, accompanying Al-Mahdi whenever he held court. She hidden behind a curtain, and if she did not agree with something, she would place her hand on his back out of sight. Al-Khayzuran had direct access to the caliph at all times: her suggestions were always adopted, individuals she recommended were favored and promoted, and at her intercession he forgave enemies or commuted death sentences.

At court she was allied with the Barmakids. During Al-Mahdi's reign, Al-Khayzuran held an extraordinary and unusual degree of power for anyone, let alone a woman: she discussed and helped decide all military and state affairs, she was not secluded in the harem, her influence over al-Mahdi allowed her to exercise political power outside of the harem over everyone and anything or everywhere, she met petitioners, both men and women, who asked her for favors or to intercede on their behalf with her husband, the caliph. These petitioners included court officials, military officers, nobles, and merchants, and she had her own court where she held audiences with generals, politicians and officials in her chambers, mixing with men and discussing state affairs or they passed her petitions of the state in envelopes. Al-Mahdi even allowed her to meet with foreign ambassadors and sign official papers for the administration of the empire. All these measures were innovations considered culturally inappropriate for a woman, underscoring her influence and power throughout the empire.

Al-Khayzuran's palace, like the caliph's, was guarded by soldiers and her lands spread past the outskirts of the capital, and she also ran a number of enterprises and factories through agents who reported directly to her, she also had a large business abroad and the much merchants and nobles of the capital and its suburbs depended on her; she owned hundreds of slaves, had many female attendants, and commanded a luxurious lifestyle. Her annual income was one-third that of the caliphate, which amount doubled during the caliphates of her sons Al-Hadi and Harun al-Rashid, and accounted for more than half of the caliphate's total income. As her husband aged, her power at court grew, and she even awarded some of her relatives with positions. While al-Mahdi was campaigning in the west and north or he traveled to around the empire for sightseeing, she managed affairs in Baghdad on his behalf. She also summoned her mother, two sisters and two brothers to court, married her sister Salsal to Prince Ja'far, and named her brother Ghatrif Governor of Yemen.

In addition to their two sons the couple also had a daughter named Banuqa. Al-Mahdi loved her so much that he had her dressed as a boy, so she could accompany him on his travels. When she died at age 16, her father caused a scandal by demanding public condolences, which was not deemed correct for a daughter.

One time when Khaizuran was in her flat encircled by other imperial women, a servant notificed her that Muznah, the widow of Marwan II, the last Umayyad caliph, was at the door. Muznah was impoverished and her story and situation moved Khaizuran's heart so much that she arranged for her to be provided for. When Khaizuran and Mahdi had dinner together that evening, she notified him what had happened. Mahdi praised her charity, and Muznah enjoyed royal patronage until her death in subsequent reign.

Reign of Musa al-Hadi
In 785, Al-Mahdi died during an expedition with his son Harun, who rushed back to Baghdad to inform her. Her two sons were also absent from the city, and to secure the succession for her son, she called upon the viziers and ordered them to pay the wages of the army to secure order, and then had them swear allegiance to her son as their new Caliph in his absence.

Al-Khayzuran reportedly wished to continue to engage in politics during the reign of her son: "Khayzuran wanted to dominate her son as she had previously dominated his father, al-Mahdi." She continued to give audiences in her chambers and discuss state affairs during the reign of her son Al-Hadi:
 * "She continued to monopolize decision-making without consulting him [al-Hadi], Khayzuran in the first part of Hadi’s reign used to settle his affairs and to deal with him as she had dealt with his father before him in assuming absolute power to command and forbid. She in the first part of Hadi’s reign, behaved as she had before.... . During the reign of al-Mahdi people came and went through her door, and she settled the affairs of the state."

Al-Hadi, however, opposed her participation in state affairs, and he was not inclined to allow displays of authority by her and attempted to exclude her from them, reportedly saying: "it is not in the power of women to intervene .. . in matters of sovereignty. Look to your prayers and your prayer beads." He disapproved of the fact that his mother gave audiences to supplicants, politicians, officials and generals and conferred with them and thus mixed with men, which he considered improper, and he publicly addressed the issue of his mothers public life by assembling his generals and asked them:
 * 'Who is the better among us, you or me?' asked Caliph al-Hadi of his audience.
 * 'Obviously you are the better, Commander of the Faithful,' the assembly replied.
 * 'And whose mother is the better, mine or yours?' continued the caliph.
 * 'Your mother is the better, Commander of the Faithful.'
 * 'Who among you', continued al-Hadi, 'would like to have men spreading news about your mother?'
 * 'No one likes to have his mother talked about,' responded those present.
 * 'Then why do men go to my mother to speak to her?'

Until this time period, Muslim women had not yet been fully secluded from society in a harem, but the harem system was to become fully institutionalized in the Islamic world under the Abbasid caliphate, when the Abbasid harem was established.

Despite his opposition, Al-Hadi did not manage to disturb his mother's extraordinary authority base, and she refused to retire from politics into the harem. The conflict was finally exposed in public when she interceded in favor of a supplicant, Abdallah ibn Malik, and publicly demanded a reply from her son, who lost his temper and openly yelled at her and said:
 * "Wait a moment and listen well to my words ... . Whoever from among my entourage - my generals, my servants - comes to you with a petition will have his head cut off and his property confiscated. What is the meaning of those retinues that throng around your door every day? Don't you have a spindle to keep you busy, a Koran for praying, a residence in which to hide from those besieging you? Watch yourself, and woe to you if you open your mouth in favour of anyone at all."

Al-Khayzuran is rumored to have had her eldest son Al-Hadi murdered after this incident. One reason given is that she learned that he was planning to kill his brother Harun al-Rashid, another that he attempted to poison her himself, which she discovered after first allowing her dog to eat of the dish he had sent to her. One version claims that she gave the task of killing him to one of his slave concubines, or jawari, to suffocate him with cushions.

Reign of Harun al-Rashid
Her second son, caliph Harun al-Rashid, in contrast to his brother, did not oppose to his mother participating in the affairs of state, but instead openly acknowledged her political ability and publicly trusted her advice, and governed the realm by her side. He was proud to point out that there was no reason for him to be ashamed of sharing his power with a woman, if she had such ability and brilliance as Al-Khayzuran.

Though it is difficult to say exactly in which issues she pressed her policy, it is nevertheless acknowledged that she participated in the decision making that formed the policy of the Caliphate. And at this time Al-Khayzuran retained all the powers of the empire and actually ruled instead of the caliph. She also legitimized her full-scale authority over her son by an old and popular saying "a mother's right is God's right".

 * "The histories do not detail Khayzuran's political achievements, but coins were struck in her name, palaces were named for her, and the cemetery in which subsequent Abbasid rulers were laid to rest carries her name, all testifying not only to status but also to civic largesse."

When she died in 789, her son broke the rules which demanded that he show no sorrow, and instead publicly demonstrated his sorrow and participated in her funeral, which attracted much attention.

Family
Al-Khayzuran was the mother of caliphs Musa al-Hadi and Harun al-Rashid. She had another son named Isa, and a daughter named Banuqah or Banujah. She was born in Mecca and brought up in Jurash. She had two sisters, Salsal and Asma, and a brother Ghitrif. She was al-Mahdi's favourite wife.

In her parental home she had a brother named Ghitrif ibn Atta, two daughters of Ghitrif; Ubaidah and Azizah married Al-Khayzuran two son Musa and Harun respectively. Thus her two nieces became his daughter-in-laws too.

Legacy
Al-Khayzuran and her strong personality is believed by many literary historians to be a key influence on Scheherazade, the main character in One Thousand and One Nights. Many of the stories were influenced by Harun al-Rashid and his fabulous court.

Al-Khayzuran was the second and last woman in the caliphate's history, who was the mother of more than one caliph (mother of two caliphs). The first woman was Wallāda, who was the mother of both Umayyad caliphs; al-Walid I and Sulayman.

title: Al-Khayzuran


text:
Talk:Rootless cosmopolitan

Bad lede
The poorly-written lede currently contains a false statement: "The anti-cosmopolitan campaign began in 1946, when Joseph Stalin in his speech in Moscow attacked writers who were ethnic Jews,[see source below (1)] and culminated in the exposure of the non-existent Doctors' Plot in 1953.[see source below (2)]"

Source 1 is a column by TV journalist Jeff Greenfield. It's an op-ed attacking Stephen Miller. It is not a reliable source for claims not made elsewhere.

Moreover, Greenfield does not actually say anything about Joseph Stalin attacking ethnic Jews in a Moscow speech, as claimed; perhaps that's why I was unable to find another source stating that. Greenfield actually states that Stalin gave a speech about literary works (authors and location unspecified): "'One reason why 'cosmopolitan' is an unnerving term is that it was the key to an attempt by Soviet dictator Josef Stalin to purge the culture of dissident voices. In a 1946 speech, he deplored works in which “the positive Soviet hero is derided and inferior before all things foreign and cosmopolitanism that we all fought against from the time of Lenin, characteristic of the political leftovers, is many times applauded.” It was part of a yearslong campaigned aimed at writers, theater critics, scientists and others who were connected with “bourgeois Western influences.” Not so incidentally, many of these “cosmopolitans” were Jewish, and official Soviet propaganda for a time devoted significant energy into “unmasking” the Jewish identities of writers who published under pseudonyms.'"

In other words, Greenfield states that Stalin deplored certain "cosmopolitan" written works and spoke out against them in 1946, then adds that many of the people attacked in the "yearslong campaign" afterward were Jewish. That's not a controversial statement, but it does not support the claim made.

Source 2 is an article in Cold War History by Konstantin Azadovskii and Boris Egorov. Having read the article, I find nothing specifically about the Doctors' Plot: the authors seem to avoid mentioning it. Indeed the Russian historical literature I am familiar with separates the anti-cosmopolitan campaign of the late 1940s from the Doctor's Plot of the early 1950s, although these are related phenomena. (E.g., various manifestations of what is called the anti-cosmopolitan campaign were wound down before the Doctors' Plot.) Zloyvolsheb (talk) 23:41, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * So what's the problem? Stalin implied, but everyone knew who were the intended target. It was normal Soviet double speak.--Aristophile (talk) 00:41, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * So you are implying Stalin implied "ethnic Jews" and "attacked ethnic Jews" when the source instead states he "deplored works in which 'the positive Soviet hero is derided and inferior before all things foreign'": is that correct? If so, see WP:OR. We write based on what the sources actually state. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 00:50, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Norwood does say that the anti-cosmopolitan campaign began in the fall of 1948.

YIVO Encyclopedia states "The new trend was heralded by an August 1946 speech by Communist Party Central Committee Secretary Andrei Zhdanov" (Zhdanov doctrine)... but "The onslaught upon Jewish “cosmopolitans” was given wide publicity. It was initiated in mid-December 1948 at the Twelfth Board Plenum of the Writers Union" So I believe that Zloyvolsheb is correct at least in the fact that 1948 is the commonly used start date. However, YIVO also states that "the anticosmopolitan campaign persisted in subdued form, flaring up again in connection with the Doctors’ Plot in 1953 just prior to the plot’s “exposure.”" buidhe 01:04, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * More or less, yes. Zhdanov did launch the so-called Zhdanovshchina campaign against Western influence in 1946, but the campaign was not immediately anti-Semitic. Azadovskii and Egorov actually stated the campaign began as an anti-Western campaign in 1946 but took an ant-Semitic turn in 1949, the argument Azadovskii and Egorov make is the anti-Western "anti-cosmopolitan" campaign morphed into the anti-Semitic "anti-rootless cosmopolitan" campaign in 1949. I take it we agree that the current lede is not written accurately? Zloyvolsheb (talk)

Is it widely considered antisemitic?
Widely can be a weasel word, hiding poor attribution. WP:WEASEL. Thus, most of the sources are from the United States and almost all from the United States or United Kingdom. Is that widely? The great majority of those expressing an opinion are Jewish. Is that widely? How representative is this handful of commentators, activists and politicians?

Which languages and time periods does this statement apply to? Several of the sources simply refer to it in theoretical and historical terms as a type of prejudice rather than as a phrase in use. Others do not suggest it is antisemitic at all. None of the sources use the term as it was used under Stalin i.e. referring to a Jew as a rootless cosmopolitan or to Jews as rootless cosmopolitans. Instead, there are references to related phrases e.g. rootless cosmopolitan elite or cosmopolitan xxxx. Are they the same in meaning or different from the original phrase?

There are few, if any, clear examples in the sources of antisemitic intent. How many people are educated in the detailed history of the Soviet Union and so are aware of the issue? Does it make a difference that migration and globalisation mean that many millions of people of every culture and country now move between countries more than once in their lives and are open to multinational influences? Some sources say that such terms should not be used even where there is no antisemitic intent. Should one stop using meaningful words and phrases because of their use in a foreign language 70 years ago?

I think there is more to this that can be captured in a single sentence. It should probably either be expanded to look in detail at controversy over the use of related phrases in the 21st century or reworded to indicate the limitations. Jontel (talk) 18:01, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That's most likely because most countries do not have a significant Jewish population, so they don't have as much of a debate around antisemitism and/or the publications would not be in English. However, I just found a source in French talking about "cosmopolitan" being used as an anti-Jewish expression around the time of the Dreyfus affair Here is a German source which says that Action Française accused Jews of being cosmopolitans  both of these were very easy to find by searching "cosmopolitan antisemitism" in the respective languages, so please don't claim that such sources don't exist without trying your own search. (t · c)  buidhe  22:38, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not see that claim in what I said, so sorry if I was not clear. I was talking only of the sources already referenced in the article. My point was that the article could usefully be expanded to include other countries and periods. I can quite see that the term would be used in multiple languages. Jontel (talk) 05:16, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Why not add some reliable, verifiable sources that say it isn't an anti-Semitic trope if that is your position? 80.47.137.128 (talk) 14:03, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

 * Yes, of course it is antisemitic as a derogatory expression that was applied in the USSR specifically to Jews. My very best wishes (talk) 23:49, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Last section
It's true that the perceived cosmopolitanism of Jewish people is a recurring theme in anti-Semitic discourse, but the cosmopolitan-provincial divide and the concept of 'rootlessness' have so much salience in mainstream political science + philosophy that it strikes me as totally bizarre that they're being presented here as exclusively anti-Semitic dog whistles. The cosmopolitan-provincial divide exists between Jews as strongly as within other demographics. It's like if a flurry of right-wing American newspapers were cited to the effect that 'anti-country rhetoric' had 'troubling' historical precedents viz a viz dekulakization, or that anti-capitalist slogans were associated with left-wing and fascist suppression of Jews. They would be correct to a degree, but it would not be anything close to the whole truth. There's a lot being omitted. Maskettaman (talk) 07:49, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , Here we go based on reliable sources rather than original research. Any proposed additions to the article must be supported by reliable sources. (t · c)  buidhe  07:52, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Rootless cosmopolitan


text:
Upper house

An upper house is one of two chambers of a bicameral legislature, the other chamber being the lower house. The house formally designated as the upper house is usually smaller and often has more restricted power than the lower house. A legislature composed of only one house (and which therefore has neither an upper house nor a lower house) is described as unicameral.

Definite specific characteristics
An upper house is usually different from the lower house in at least one of the following respects (though they vary among jurisdictions):

Powers:
 * In a parliamentary system, it often has much less power than the lower house. Therefore, in certain countries the upper house
 * votes on only limited legislative matters, such as constitutional amendments,
 * cannot initiate most kinds of legislation, especially those pertaining to supply/money, fiscal policy
 * cannot vote a motion of no confidence against the government (or such an act is much less common), while the lower house always can.
 * In a presidential system:
 * It may have equal or nearly equal power with the lower house.
 * It may have specific powers not granted to the lower house. For example:
 * It may give advice and consent to some executive decisions (e.g. appointments of cabinet ministers, judges or ambassadors).
 * It may have the sole power to try (but not necessarily initiate) impeachment cases against officials of the executive or even judicial branch, following enabling resolutions passed by the lower house.
 * It may have the sole power to ratify treaties.
 * In a semi-presidential system:
 * It may have less power than the lower house
 * in semi-presidential France, the Government can decide to legislate a normal law without the Sénat's agreement (Article 45 of the constitution), but
 * It may have equal power to the lower house regarding the constitution or the territorial collectivities.
 * It may not vote a motion of no confidence against the government, but it may investigate State cases.
 * It may make proposals of laws to the lower house.

Status:
 * In some countries, its members are not popularly elected; membership may be indirect, ex officio or by appointment.
 * Its members may be elected with a different voting system than that used to elect the lower house (for example, upper houses in Australia and its states are usually elected by proportional representation, whereas lower houses are usually not).
 * Less populated states, provinces, or administrative divisions may be better represented in the upper house than in the lower house; representation is not always intended to be proportional to population.
 * Members' terms may be longer than in the lower house and may be for life.
 * Members may be elected in portions, for staggered terms, rather than all at one time.
 * In some countries, the upper house cannot be dissolved at all, or can be dissolved only in more limited circumstances than the lower house.
 * It typically has fewer members or seats than the lower house (though notably not in the United Kingdom parliament).
 * It has usually a higher age of candidacy than the lower house.

Parliamentary systems
In parliamentary systems the upper house is frequently seen as an advisory or a "house of review" chamber; for this reason, its powers of direct action are often reduced in some way. Some or all of the following restrictions are often placed on upper houses:

 * Lack of control over the executive branch. (By contrast, in the US and many other presidential systems, the Senate or upper chamber has more control over the composition of the Cabinet and the administration generally, through its prerogative of confirming the president's nominations to senior offices.)
 * No absolute veto of proposed legislation, though suspensive vetoes are permitted in some states.
 * In countries where it can veto legislation (such as the Netherlands), it may not be able to amend the proposals.
 * A reduced or even absent role in initiating legislation.
 * No power to block supply, or budget measures (a rare example of a parliamentary upper house that does possess this power is the Australian Senate, which notably exercised that power in 1975)

In parliamentary democracies and among European upper houses the Italian Senate is a notable exception to these general rules, in that it has the same powers as its lower counterpart: any law can be initiated in either house and must be approved in the same form by both houses. Additionally, a Government must have the consent of both to remain in office, a position which is known as "perfect bicameralism" or "equal bicameralism."

The role of a revising chamber is to scrutinise legislation that may have been drafted over-hastily in the lower house and to suggest amendments that the lower house may nevertheless reject if it wishes to. An example is the British House of Lords. Under the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, the House of Lords can no longer prevent the passage of most bills, but it must be given an opportunity to debate them and propose amendments, and can thereby delay the passage of a bill with which it disagrees. Bills can only be delayed for up to one year before the Commons can use the Parliament Act, although economic bills can only be delayed for one month.

The House of Lords is sometimes seen as having a special role of safeguarding the uncodified Constitution of the United Kingdom and important civil liberties against ill-considered change.

The House of Lords has a number of ways to block legislation and to reject it; however, the House of Commons can eventually use the Parliament Act to force something through. The Commons will often accept amendments passed by the Lords; however, the two houses have sometimes reached a constitutional standoff. For example, when the Labour Government of 1999 tried to expel all hereditary peers from the Lords, the Lords threatened to wreck the Government's entire legislative agenda and to block every bill which was sent to the chamber. This standoff led to negotiations between Viscount Cranborne, the then Shadow Leader of the House, and the Labour Government, resulting in the Weatherill Amendment to the House of Lords Act 1999, which preserved 92 hereditary peers in the house. Compromise and negotiation between the two houses make the Parliament Act a very rarely used backup plan.

Even without a veto, an upper house may defeat legislation. Its opposition may give the lower chamber a chance to reconsider or even abandon a controversial measure. It can also delay a bill so that it does not fit within the legislative schedule, or until a general election produces a new lower house that no longer wishes to proceed with the bill.

Nevertheless, some states have long retained powerful upper houses. For example, the consent of the upper house to legislation may be necessary (though, as noted above, this seldom extends to budgetary measures). Constitutional arrangements of states with powerful upper houses usually include a means to resolve situations where the two houses are at odds with each other.

In recent times, parliamentary systems have tended to weaken the powers of upper houses relative to their lower counterparts. Some upper houses have been fully abolished; others have had their powers reduced by constitutional or legislative amendments. Also, conventions often exist that the upper house ought not to obstruct the business of government for frivolous or merely partisan reasons. These conventions have tended to harden with a passage of time.

Presidential systems
In presidential systems, the upper house is frequently given other powers to compensate for its restrictions:

 * Executive appointments, to the cabinet and other offices, usually require its approval.
 * It frequently has the sole authority to give consent to ratify and abrogate foreign treaties.

Institutional structure
There are a variety of ways an upper house's members are assembled: by direct or indirect election, appointment or a mixture of these. Many upper houses are not directly elected but appointed: either by the head of state, by the head of government or in some other way. This is usually intended to produce a house of experts or otherwise distinguished citizens, who would not necessarily be returned in an election. For example, members of the Senate of Canada are appointed by the Governor General on the advice of the Prime Minister.

In the past, some upper houses had seats that were entirely hereditary, such as in the British House of Lords until 1999 and in the Japanese House of Peers until it was abolished in 1947.

It is also common that the upper house consists of delegates chosen by state governments or local officials. Members of the Rajya Sabha in India are nominated by various states and union territories, while 12 of them are nominated by the President of India. Similarly, at the state level, one-third of the members of the State Legislative Council (Vidhan Parishad) are nominated by local governments, one-third by sitting legislators, and the rest are elected by select members of the electorate. The United States Senate was chosen by state legislatures until the passage of the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913.

The upper house may be directly elected but in different proportions to the lower house - for example, the senates of Australia, Brazil and the United States have a fixed number of elected members from each state, regardless of the population.

Abolition
Many jurisdictions once possessed upper houses but abolished them to adopt unicameral systems, including Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, Hungary, Iceland, Iran, Mauritania, New Zealand, Peru, Sweden, Turkey, Venezuela, many Indian states, Brazilian states, Canadian provinces, subnational entities such as Queensland, and some other jurisdictions. Newfoundland had a Legislative Council prior to joining Canada, as did Ontario when it was Upper Canada and Quebec from 1791 (as Lower Canada) to 1968.

Nebraska is the only state in the United States with a unicameral legislature, having abolished its lower house in 1934, while the Senate of Nebraska, the upper house prior to 1934, continues to assemble.

The Australian state of Queensland also once had an appointed Legislative Council before abolishing it in 1922. All other Australian states continue to have bicameral systems, though all members are now directly elected (the two self-governing territories have always been unicameral).

Like Queensland, the German state of Bavaria had an appointed second chamber, the Senate of Bavaria, from 1946 to 1999.

The Senate of the Philippines was abolished – and restored – twice: from 1935 to 1945 when a unicameral National Assembly convened, and from 1972 to 1987 when Congress was closed, and later a new constitution was approved instituting a unicameral Parliament. The Senate was re-instituted with the restoration of a bicameral Congress via a constitutional amendment in 1941, and via adoption of a new constitution in 1987.

A previous government of Ireland (the 31st Dáil) promised a referendum on the abolition of its upper house, the Seanad Éireann, during the 24th Seanad session. By a narrow margin, the Irish public voted to retain it. Conservative-leaning Fine Gael and Left-leaning Sinn Féin both supported the abolition, while the centrist Fianna Fáil was alone among major parties in supporting the retention of the Seanad.

Common terms

 * Senate — by far the most common
 * Legislative Council (Indian states having upper houses; Isle of Man; and every Australian state that has an upper house)
 * Federal Council (Germany, Austria) or Federation Council (Russia)
 * Council of States (Switzerland, India (Rajya Sabha), Sudan)
 * First Chamber — Netherlands (formerly, Sweden)
 * House of Lords – seen in the United Kingdom, as well as formerly in Ireland and in German-speaking monarchies (Herrenhaus), e.g. the Austrian House of Lords and the Prussian House of Lords

title: Upper house