Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 April 26

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 25

Who is the smartest man ever?

Who is the smartest man ever on record?

Sincerely Kevin —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.134.28.63 (talk) 03:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

I removed an email address. I hope I have not offended any rule, but the address had appeared on the screen. Bielle 03:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The smartest modern, English speakers I know of, as measured by less-than-perfect IQ tests, are Marilyn vos Savant and Bobby Fischer. The vos Savant article also deals with the problems of measuring IQ. Then there is the whole rest of the world, and all of human history before the 1900s. Bielle 03:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Pick one from the list: Take a look at Polymath and the associated list in the discussion page. No human being will ever conclusively answer your question. Perhaps a bird will whisper the answer into your ear. dr.ef.tymac 04:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

For all we know, the human with the potential to be the smartest ever died as a child at Chelmno extermination camp, in the Plague of Justinian, or on the African savannah 8,000 years ago. He or she may have lived a life of desperation as a slave on a Virginia plantation or as a prostitute in a 11th century Chinese brothel. The person who was able to use that potential to its highest level may never have been written about, or writings describing the individual may not have survived to the present day.

Intelligence tests are limited in scope and have only existed for a short period of time; what's more, the vast majority of intelligent people in the modern world never take an IQ test (they're not readily available outside the Anglophone world), and the vast majority that do don't publicize the results.

So any "smartest person ever" question that requires a definitive answer based on IQ is really asking, "who among modern anglophone Westerners (who have taken an IQ test and publicized the results) has the highest score?" There are so many variables that the answer to that question is, in my opinion, completely worthless.

Any other definition (polymathism, for instance - it would be considerably easier for an American manufacturing heir of above average intelligence to become a polymath than a supergenius growing up in a shanty in Bolivia) is unquantifiable and again, in my opinion, similarly worthless. --Charlene 06:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

A good answer, Charlene, though I personally feel that intellect has to be nurtured. Besides, I am hopeless at those dreadful Eysenck tests, I freely confess! Clio the Muse 06:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely. I think I'd change that sentence to "The person who was able to develop that potential...". The thing is, I strongly suspect the "smartest man on record" is still an unanswerable question, because then you'd have to ask what record (IQ? Academic success? Number of inventions?) and go into how intelligence is measured, and whether different IQ tests could be compared. And then you'd have a useless answer, because it's vanishingly unlikely that the smartest man on record is the smartest man ever, or the smartest person. --Charlene 13:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

But Knowledge to their eyes her ample page

Rich with the spoils of time did ne'er unroll;

Chill Penury repress'd their noble rage,

And froze the genial current of the soul.

- Thomas Gray, Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard. Gandalf61 13:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly, the questioner asked for the "smartest man" and "on record". To be fair, that was the original question. It could be read as sexist and biased toward documented cases only (but that might have been unintentional); and yes, it gave no operational definition of "smartest".

Nevertheless, one might also fault re-framing the original question to include "documented or undocumented cases", and then choosing a definition for the questioner (i.e. 'highest IQ score' or 'polymathism' or 'cultivation through nurturing' or 'intrinsic ability' or ...) and then dismissing any posssible answer as "worthless."

Perhaps "greatest" and "smartest" truly is unquantifiable for those who have given it serious consideration, but then this very discussion demonstrates that reasonable people can have varying personal opinions on what "intellect" really is.

Most importantly, not everyone has given this serious consideration. Some people just like reading about noteworthy individuals who have done well in this or that academic field. Some people are happy with glib answers and collect names of intellectuals like others collect baseball cards. Although other, more "meticulous" thinkers may find such pursuits unfulfilling, it would seem rather uncharitable to categorically dismiss them as "worthless." dr.ef.tymac 15:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Beau Brummell is a good candidate, assuming one willfully misunderstands the American usage of the word "smart" in the question. --Dweller 08:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, all good suggestions and reasoning. I might say William James Sidis for an answer. Valens Impérial Császár 93 18:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

"State" vs. "state"

I'm curious if Wikipedia should adopt a style standard concerning the use of the word state and how it should appear based on its context. The word "state" with a lower-case s is usually used in a context to represent a meaning similar to that of country, government, or nation-state, a basic political science term. I agree with this usage. On the flip, "State" with a capital S should be used either when the first meaning is used to begin a sentence--as normal--or when the author is specifically referencing States as in the several States within the United States (e.g. CA, TX, VA, ND, etc.). Foofighter20x 03:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a discussion for the Wikipedia Manual of Style, not the Reference Desk. Anyway, most style guides would call for lower-case in all uses of the word except when stating the formal name of a state (as in "State of Kansas."). -- Mwalcoff 04:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Why are Liberals "Left" and Conservatives "Right"?

Why are Liberals "Left" and Conservatives "Right"? Why are Liberals called "Whigs" and Conservatives "Tory"? Why is one "Blue" and the other "Red"? CaitanyaCandra

The French Revolution of 1789 had a parlaiment or National Assembly (French Revolution) you should note the factions. I understand there was, at one stage, a meeting chamber, and the conservative groups tended to collect on the right side, and the radicals on the left.

In England, there were two major parties that were both tended to conservative politics, but the Torys more so than the Whigs.

I don't know about the colors, but they might have something to do with 1860's US politics, and the GOP (Republican) party being founded near that time, and trying to distinguish itself from the Democrat Party. DDB 05:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

FYI, the name of the party is "Democratic Party" (unless you're talking about Thailand or Brazil). --TotoBaggins 13:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. The use of "Democrat Party" is a slur. Corvus cornix 17:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Consistent attachment of colors to parties is quite new in the USA (see Red states and blue states) but, I gather, much older in Britain. —Tamfang 20:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, CaitanyaCandra. To begin with look at Left-wing politics. The division between right and left dates to the French Revolution of 1789, when the practice grew up for the liberal and radical deputies in the various National Assemblies, from the Estates General onwards, to sit to the left of the chair of the presiding officer, and the less radical and the conservative to the right. The association between radical action and the colour red also dates to this time, as the red flag, denoting a state of emergency, was flown at times of acute political tension, usually prior to one of the many 'revolutions within the revolution', like that of August 1792. The labels Whig and Tory are even older, going back to English politics in the late seventeenth century. A faction grew up in Parliament opposed to the policies of Charles II, originally known as the 'Country Party' as a way of distingushing them from the supporters of the king, known as the 'Court Party'. The enemies of the Country Party started to call them 'Whigs', after the extreme Presbyterian rebels in Scotland. The Country Party responded by calling the King's men 'Tories', after a group of Irish bandits. Both labels stuck, and were adopted by the respective factions as their own. Clio the Muse 05:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I may be mistaken, but the fact that conservatives are to the right of the speaker of the Assembly in France is due to the fact that, originally, conservatives were from the nobility and the high clergy, who were at the place of honour — and this place is classically to the right of the speaker.

Witness how in classical depictions of the Last Supper, the elderly Peter stands to the right of Christ, because this is the place of honour. David.Monniaux 17:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is a good point. Throughout the Middle Ages those dining with monarchs, and considered worthy of particular honour, were always seated to the right of the royal chair. Clio the Muse 18:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

This is presumably related to the side on which Jesus (ie. God the Son) is said (in some faiths) to occupy in relation to God the Father - "seated on the right hand of the Father". JackofOz 06:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

polygamy and adultery

This was originally posted on Science Reference Desk but it should be posted here instead.

I have a question. If an adult male marries Abigail and Brittany Hensel then will he be guilty of polygamy? If he marries just one of them then will he be commiting adultery? 202.168.50.40 05:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Past decisions about whether conjoined twins are allowed to marry have been ambiguous. The Hilton twins couldn't, but Chang and Eng Bunker could. I wonder if any lawyer could give a reasonable opinion because of this ambiguity. If either of them wants to marry, they might have to go to court to get a judge's ruling. --Charlene 05:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

They are legally two separate people with separate driving licenses. I don't see how it could be polygamy - but it can't really be anything other than adultery as they have only one set of genitalia. Secretlondon 06:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Adultery? More like awesome. --24.147.86.187 12:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

If they are legally two seperate people then surely marrying them both will be polygamy? Nil Einne 12:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

This does raise some interesting questions legally. Firstly I would presume marrying one won't make you commit adultery. If you have sex after marriage then maybe but I don't see why simply marrying one would be adultery. However speaking of sex, I would presume regardless of whether adultery is involved, you would have to have the consent of both of them. Otherwise you'd probably be guilty of rape. I presume also if you kill them, you'd be guilty of two murders. Nil Einne 14:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

This question gives Double penetration a whole new meaning.--Kirby♥time 18:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

International school in Poland

Dear Sir/Madam; I am a teacher working in an international school in Poland and i would like to send information about our school to wikipedia. I already have an account: meridianwarsaw. I would like that our school,Meridian International school, Warsaw, be displayed under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_international_schools#Poland title.

Could you please tell me what I should do? Regards...

I have added your school to the list, however it has no page of its own as yet so you'll probably want to add one. See Wikipedia:How to edit a page and Help:Starting a new page for more information. Algebraist 13:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

To create a page for your school, type in the search box the name of the school (with proper capitals and everything) and then click the red link that appears. Or, just click this red link Meridian International School and it will start a new page for you. --Candy-Panda 09:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You should also read WP:COI Nil Einne 14:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Where do "hunches" come from?

Hunch can be defined as:

• suspicion (an impression that something might be the case)
• a guess or feeling not based on known facts at that moment.
• an intutive reckoning that an "impossibe" is really possible.

Where do "hunches" come from? Is there a "storehouse" someplace full of Ideas and then a "hunch" is where we get a "connection" to an Idea (perhaps one that is unknown at the time: example being Edison and his electric lamp)? --Doug ^talk 12:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

For me it's a combination of intellect, judgement and instinct. It is not 'feminine intuition'; it is my intuition. Clio the Muse 12:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

In Lockean psychology (sorry for referring to John Locke twice in only a few minutes), these are 'rhymes' or 'harmonies' of disparate ideas that jingle with each other according to the fancy of the mind. Judgment then takes over to test whether these likenesses are valid, and then imagination works out how they can be real. Despite 300 years, this remains generally how intuition is understood: one idea jars with another, one bit of dormant memory kicks, and some similarity not apparent on the surface strikes one, and then one begins to weigh, assess, and project. The electric light isn't very much a random thought, but the safety pin might be, or the zipper. Most of these intuitions are described in memoirs as starting with an observation that "strikes" one a particular way and brings out other thoughts. These ties and connections can be at any level, from simple linguistic ones to shapes or colors or properties. Utgard Loki 12:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

You can mention John Locke as often as you wish, Utgard Loki, without apology! Clio the Muse 12:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

that reminds me, i forgot to tivo LOST. thanks. the_undertow ^talk 22:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Louis Pasteur is credited with saying "Fortune favors the prepared mind." [1]. Thomas Edison and a team of assistants did thousands of experiments over many months to come up with the first practical light bulb in 1879: He perhaps had a hunch at the beginning of the work that he could make a successful incandescent lamp from a thin strip of platinum heated by electricity in open air with a regulator to prevent the temperature from reaching the melting point, but the eventual first practical lamp was notable for a carbon filament of very small cross section, to make it high resistance, so that it could be supplied with electricity from a distance, in a one piece glass bulb with an extremely high vacuum and with the metal leads well sealed where they passed through the glass. Hunches had surprisingly little to do with the successful research program, and exhaustive tireless empiricism had everythng to do with it. 10,000 hunches, 9,999 dead ends, one success. And in the proces, the invention of the vacuum tube in the form of the Edison effect, which was used a few years later to launch the field of electronics. Edison 16:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Edison answering this question, other editors answering questions on the nine Muses and on Marco Polo. I have a hunch that it's time to re-read WP:COI. ---Sluzzelin talk 16:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

In the case of the 10,000 experiments and the 9,999 dead ends, it looks to me that at least one was an intelligent "hunch" that it might work then. Somebody (one or more of Edison's assistants) had the "idea" that with this combination you described above, that it would produce an incandescent lamp that would work on electricity. It did not happen by accident! Initially it must have been Edison that had this "hunch" before he set in motion many of his assistants to perform thousands of experiments. This was not a casual decision and cost a lot of money. It must have been a "hunch" that ultimately it would pay back profits; since he was willing to pursue it to fruition. Or was it a darn good guess? To me it looks like these experiments were just the mechanics of bringing his "hunch" to fruition. Did he somehow "connect" to this "storehouse" of Ideas and already know that it would work and that it was then merely the mechanics of putting it together; since nobody else had ever done anything like this before him. How did he know it would work? --Doug ^talk 18:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

There were electric lighting apparatuses before Edison (just not as good as his). AnonMoos 18:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Then he must have had an intelligent "hunch" that he could make a superior long lasting incandescent lamp. Where did he get that Idea from? --Doug ^talk 18:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a good business idea? X is a nice thought, but it's impractical. I bet I could sell Improved-X for lots of money! Edison bought out older patents on primitive light bulbs and experimented until he produced a commercially viable one. You may find Occam's Razor of interest, as your suppositions seem to introduce lots of unneccessary and untestable notions to explaining the idea of invention. — Lomn 18:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding his work and inventions, Edison said "None of my inventions came by accident. I see a worthwhile need to be met and I make trial after trial until it comes. What it boils down to is one per cent inspiration and ninety-nine per cent perspiration.". - Eron ^Talk 18:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly! This is approximately what I am saying. In this quote it looks like to me he is able to "see" that it was doable, then it was just the mechanics = "make trial after trial until it comes." If he did not even have an intellegent inclination it would work he would not have invested this large amount of money and time to bring it to fruition. It looks like a "hunch" to me, being then some sort of inside information that ultimately it would work. Where did he get this "inside information"? This notion of an intelligent "hunch" could be brought over also to the Wright Brothers and their invention of a heavier-than-air controllable airplane. While many others invested much more money to make this come about, they failed. However apparently they were able to get better "hunches' and with a limited budget (a fraction of others) they were successful. Where did they get their "hunches". --Doug ^talk 18:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm seeing a parallel here with arguments regarding intelligent design and irreducible complexity. Just as there are those who argue that some natural systems are too complex to have arisen spontaneously, you seem to be arguing that some ideas are too good to have arisen spontaneously. I can't say as I am any more convinced by the latter argument than the former. Complex natural systems arise from millions upon millions of organisms living, dying, and evolving. For every human eyeball that arises, there are thousands of genetic and evolutionary dead ends. In the same way, for every Edison and every light bulb, there are a thousand toilers in a thousand basements, trying out other ideas that fall short of success. But we never see or hear of them; bad ideas (well, most of them) are lost to the ages. We see only an almost unbroken string of successful inspirations, not the undoubtedly larger number of failures. - Eron ^Talk 18:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

A hunch can be a flash of holistic understanding in the prepared mind, an epiphany. Then the other half of the brain sets out to work the "hunch" through logically. See Charles Darwin's "hunch" during The Voyage of the Beagle. --Wetman 19:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

See also lateral thinking. --Wetman 20:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

In the sciences, hunches often come from analogies and symmetries. —Tamfang 20:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks all for these great answers....--Doug ^talk 22:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Phenomena which might hold great scientific or commercial promise are often ignored by the "unprepared mind." Penicillin for instance. There is not much proof of Thomas Edison buying predecessor lamp patents. This seems to be grasping on the part of fans of earlier unsuccessful researchers, whose bulbs drew excessively high current at low voltage and burned out in an hour or two. The really early patents (like 1845) had expired, and his successful lamp did not use patented features of previous efforts, as the courts finally decided, when there were only a couple of years left on his patent. Edison was optimistic that he could find a way to "subdivide" the electric light, with leading scientists and earlier experimenters saying it as impossible and he was on a fool's errand or was a charlatan. Edison 05:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

This of Edison being "optimistic" is what I am alluding to of a "hunch". He spent a lot of money, time, and energy in developing a lamp that would be commercially viable. Somehow he knew information that others didn't have and was willing to spend all this time, money, and energy; since he knew he would prevail. As was determined, he did not use patented features of previous efforts. He must have had a "hunch" he had inside information. Obviously he knew information that the others didn't have, since he was successful and the other were not. His was definitely a prepared mind. He had enough information (wherever he got it from) to be optimistic that he would be successful = "hunch".--Doug ^talk 12:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm surprised nobody's mentioned Kekule's dream about the Ouroboros, that led him to discovering the benzene ring. Or his vision of dancing atoms and molecules that led to his theory of structure, which he said happened while he was riding on the upper deck of a horse-drawn omnibus in London. JackofOz 05:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The [[ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pfly (talk • contribs) 07:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

But why are you presuming that he knew he would prevail? He THOUGHT he would prevail. I question whether you can say with certainty he knew he would prevail. As others have pointed out, many people think they will prevail and think they know something others don't and spend lots of money, time and energy until their either prevail or they give up/die. The key thing here is each one thought they would prevail but we only remember the ones who prevailed. The ones who don't generally fade into obscurity. In retrospect, we may be able to see many ideas are just plain stupid but if you are looking at things from the view of an observer of the times, it's usually far more difficult to know which idea is a winner and which one is stupid. Edit looking at this [2] it appears that as one would expect Edison had failed ideas as well. It's likely in each case he equally thought he would prevailed, but he didn't always Nil Einne 14:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Price of oil in gold

I want to prove that the price of crude oil when measured in gold is that same today as it was 30 years ago. How would I find the price of gold today and 30 years ago. And the same for gold.

Today: oil is $64 and gold is $675 thus One barrel of oil is worth 0.0948 ounce of gold.

210.49.122.80 12:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

According to some rough figures [3], [4], thirty years ago the price of oil was about $10US a barrel and gold about $150US per ounce. So a barrel of oil was worth about 0.0667 ounces of gold. Thus the price of oil in gold has risen about 42% in the last 30 years. Algebraist 13:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, there are frivolous but fun things like this, but then there are actual economic analyses of "real dollar" costs, like the one by M. R. Darby in The American Economic Review from 1982. The search you want to perform is "real dollar" cost of oil and "real dollar" cost of gold, and then pick which standard you want. They used to calculate in 1972 dollars, but perhaps now they use 2000 dollars. Utgard Loki 15:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

globalism

to what extent has globalism been responsible for the rapid structural transformation undergone by western societies over the last 30 years? The-tokin-taxman 19:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

If you'd like help with your homework, we'd be glad to do that. Though we aren't going to do it for you outright. Perhaps you'd like to explain what class this is for and such so that we can point you in the right direction. Though, looking through your notes from class as well as any textbooks that you have might be the best place to look. While you're here though, I might suggest the article on Globalization as well as History of globalization. Dismas|^(talk) 19:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that my society had undergone a rapid structural transformation over the last 30 years. —Tamfang 20:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Internet *cough* :). Splintercellguy 02:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

How do I ?

How do I access Humanities 15 April? - Kittybrewster (talk) 20:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

If you mean the questions from this desk from 15 April, they are in the Archives. Dismas|^(talk) 20:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks. - Kittybrewster (talk) 22:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

incident in hyde park

This was the title of a poem I studied for GCE O level in the early sixties.I can't remember the name of the anthology,but it contained poems by people like Yeats,Auden,and Chesterton,so it's unlikely that the author was completely unheard of.The poem described an actual C19 event which was well recorded at the time.Two young officers(one Army,one Navy)argued while walking their dogs in Hyde Park,London.The men were named Montgomery and McNamara,and the poem relates how the argument led to a duel and a death.The general feeling of the poem was the folly of human aggression and I can remember vast chunks of it,but not the author's name.I've sought help from various internet sources,but nobody seems to believe that the poem ever existed.How can a poem that was considered good enough to be studied at national examination standard have disappeared so completely forty years later?Was the author somehow discredited?I was only a teenager,but I found it very powerful. Some lines: If your dog fight my dog,I warn you,I knock your dog down. Knock my dog down,and by God you'll go sprawling....later,the trial of the surviving duellist is described(a springtide of Admirals,almost Neptune in person),the two dogs"stretched at home in the firelight",and the poem ends with the words "and Honour rides on".Please,somebody,end my torment and remember this poem. By the way,the examining body was the Oxford Examinations Board,which no longer exists,and yes,I have tried libraries! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.13.211.218 (talk) 21:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

Edmund Blunden

--HJMG 21:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, according to this the real person was James MacNamara: "James MacNamara (1768 - 1826) from County Clare was in the British navy where he saw much service up to the Peace of Amiens. In a duel provoked by a fight between two dogs, he killed his opponent and, in 1803, was tried for murder. At his trial, Nelson, Hood and other distinguished officers testified to his character and service, so that he was acquitted. In 1814 he was appointed an admiral." Adam Bishop 22:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Seems like an actually worthwhile "Did You Know" article is lurking in there. Geogre 10:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Currency - Store locator

I'm looking for a place that sells old dollar bills in Los Angeles, CA —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.151.59.5 (talk) 21:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

I googled "Yellow Pages" Los Angeles, then Coin Dealers, under which category I found this [[5]]. The company also deals in paper money, according to their expanded listing. And, no, I don't know anything about the company or the industry; I don't even live in the US. Bielle 01:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

roger ebert

so is ebert's inability to talk due to surgery and illness permanent or temporary —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.98.86.190 (talk) 21:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

If you follow the correct link from his article, you get to this April 3 message from him, where he says his loss of voice is because he had a tracheostomy and will be repaired in his "upcoming completion surgery". --Anonymous Ebert fan, April 26, 23:47 (UTC).

Auditor of the Exchequer for Scotland

What is this position Is it notable? It is under afd at Robert Arbuthnot (auditor). Can anyone improve the article? - Kittybrewster (talk) 23:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was a reasonably important position in the old Scottish fiscal system. The Auditors of the Exchequer, answerable to the Court of Exchequer, were responsible for the management of crown revenues. Holders of the position included John Barbour, the author of an epic poem on Robert Bruce, who was an auditor for Robert II in the late fourteenth century. I'm not sure that there is an awful lot that can be done to improve that page-fairly lamentable in its present state-other than to carry out some more extensive research on Arbuthnot's life, particularly his relationship with Stair. I imagine you would be able to find some material on the subject in the National Library of Scotland. There is also a brief piece in Notes and Queries for 1918 (pp. 219-20), by one A. J. Arbuthnot, entitled Robert Arbuthnot, Auditor of the Exchequer. But to be perfectly honest with you, Kittybrewster, I have a feeling that the Auditor has, at best, minimal historical significance. Clio the Muse 00:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

There's a National Archives for Scotland research guide which might possibly suggest some leads. Also - have you already seen Robert Arbuthnot's will which can be accessed here for a few pounds? --HJMG 08:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)