Humanities desk
< January 3	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 5 >

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.

January 4[edit]

Can anyone help me identify the subject of this painting?[edit]

I'm currently expanding Lady Mary Hamilton and am looking for an image to use. I came across this by Joshua Reynolds but am not positive that this is the same subject. She married in 1762 (becoming Lady Mary Hamilton), but the subject of this painting uses her maiden name (Lady Mary Leslie) and is dated 1764. Is it standard for artists to use the maiden name of a subject? I just want to be sure before I upload it. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks! Ruby 2010/2013 02:48, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This says the portrait is of the daughter of John Leslie, 10th Earl of Rothes (and who became the wife of William Colyear, 3rd Earl of Portmore). Thincat (talk) 16:46, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's as I feared. The subject seemed too young as well for the person I'm working on. I'll keep looking. Thanks again! Ruby 2010/2013 18:24, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now We are Free[edit]

I know the song in Gladiator is sung in gibberish, but I have been listening to it (one of my cycling songs in the early morning), and I can make out a few words of Aramaic (irrelevant to the film), but nothing that sounds anything like Latin. Does anyone know if it was intentionally sung in gibberish, and for what reason? Just to make it sound exotic? KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 07:08, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One person at least thinks the song is translatable in full. Maybe you can tell us whether this is all Aramaic apart from the one word of Latin there: flavum, "yellow". --Antiquary (talk) 09:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That translation is completely wrong, if it is indeed a 'translation' of what I believe to be a made-up language. I can pick out words from Aramaic, and indeed that one Latin word (with variations thereof), but none of it makes sense, and certainly makes no reference to Jesus. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 10:35, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a second stab then. The soundtrack to Gladiator is by Lisa Gerrard and Hans Zimmer, and the Lisa Gerrard page tells us that she

...sings many of her songs, such as "Now We Are Free", "Come Tenderness", "Serenity", "The Valley of the Moon", "Tempest", "Pilgrimage of Lost Children", "Coming Home" and "Sanvean" in idioglossia.

No reference is given. The same page also says

...she collaborated with Hans Zimmer on such songs as "Now We Are Free." With respect to such work she has said, "I sing in the language of the Heart. It's an invented language that I've had for a very long time. I believe I started singing in it when I was about 12. Roughly that time. And I believed that I was speaking to God when I sang in that language."

This time the only reference is to IMDb. I think that's the only motive for writing the song in gibberish you're going to find. --Antiquary (talk) 11:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Number of married people[edit]

How many married people are there in the world, approximately? According to [1], a majority of 30-34 year old women was married in almost all countries as of 2002, but the proportion among the total (or total female) population will likely be far lower due to most children not being married and many widows among the elderly. Which countries have the highest proportions of married people? From the link given and its low birth rate, I expect China to be among the highest... --Roentgenium111 (talk) 13:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Table 3 of the United Nations Demographic Yearbook [2] has some related information: it gives the total number of heads of households in each country and the number that are married. Multiplying the number that are married by 2 might give a rough estimate, but this would be a lot of work. Dividing by total population in each country would give an idea of the proportion. Some countries, such as Vietnam, don't seem to be in the table. The totals may be correlated elsewhere on the website.--Wikimedes (talk) 07:12, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. The number of married heads of household should indeed give a rough estimate for the individual countries, but no exact value since some married couples will not lead their own household. E.g. in India, you get 330 million married people from this, but the average size of a household is >6, so there'll be many households with several "nuclei". And (mainland) China is also missing in the table...--Roentgenium111 (talk) 14:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Napoleon in Russia[edit]

Why didn't Napoleon occupy St. Petersburg in his Russian campaign? It was the Russian capital and following the Baltic coastline with possible assistance from Sweden or Denmark would have been safer than conducting a land invasion into the heart of Russia.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 17:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably Napoleon knew the Russians could use Moscow as a temporary capital, rebuild their troops, and launch attacks from there, so defeating Russia meant driving a steak into it's heart. StuRat (talk) 19:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would that have been a T-bone? Dismas|^(talk) 00:16, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be willing to bet more Russian hearts (and hearts worldwide), have been stopped by excessive consumption of steaks than by wooden stakes. :-) StuRat (talk) 04:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC) [reply]

I think they would just make stroganoff out of it... --Jayron 32 00:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commonly available in bistros. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:19, 5 January 2015 (UTC) [reply]

See French invasion of Russia. Napoleon wasn't after the occupation of Russia, he wanted to defeat the Russian Army in the field to bring the Tsar to the negotiating table. Thus, the French army went wherever the Russian Army went, and the Russians kept falling back towards Moscow, until the French eventually caught up with them at Borodino. Mogism (talk) 19:30, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per Mogism, Napoleon wasn't after occupying territory, per se. His main goal was to destroy the ability of his enemies to fight, and then to negotiate an "alliance" with them (i.e. make them vassals of the French Empire). It left the local structures in place, but took a potential enemy out of the equation and allowed Napoleon to spread French Revolutionary ideals throughout Europe (always a goal of his). This entire system of establishing European "alliances" by defeating their armies in the field was known as the Continental System and had the threefold objectives of: 1) Spreading French Revolutionary ideals 2) Eliminating potential enemies and 3) Isolating Great Britain from any potential allies. Napoleon's strategy was actually a continuation of the Republican strategy before him, several Sister Republics were established as client states of the French Republic during the early years of the French Revolutionary Wars. Napoleon adapted it, and established his own system of client states, either with his own hand-picked monarchs (i.e. Spain, Joseph Bonaparte) or subjugated states which kept their own monarchs, but had to agree to terms of "alliance" with France. Russia was actually an ally of Napoleon after its defeat in the War of the Fourth Coalition, Napoleon invaded when Russia refused to keep its terms of the alliance. See Treaties of Tilsit and Congress of Erfurt which explain the alliance between Napoleon and Russia. --Jayron 32 23:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A memoirist recalls Napoleon's words before the campaign: "If I capture Kiev, I'll take Russia's feet - if I capture St. Petersburg, I'll seize its head - but if I capture Moscow, I'll hit its heart". The Russians never knew which city Napoleon was going to attack, so they had to divide their army and defend each direction. Peter Wittgenstein was in charge of the corps that was to defend Saint Petersburg, should Napoleon decide to turn north. --Ghirla^-трёп- 09:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Who proposed this theory?[edit]

Who is the person who proposed the theory that modern greeks are mainly descended from slavs, not ancient greeks? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.119.235.152 (talk) 17:34, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You might be thinking of Jakob Philipp Fallmerayer, who is often described as having promoted something like that (although I wouldn't be too confident in judging what he really did write based only on the way his ideas are presented by angry Greeks today, as they tend to treat him a bit as an ideological bogeyman.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:39, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

During most of the 7th through 10th centuries A.D., Slavs inhabited much of interior western Greece (in the 7th century A.D., even the Peloponnese), and the area where the most native speakers of Greek lived was actually Anatolia (not Greece proper)... AnonMoos (talk) 00:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saints in the Roman Catholic Church[edit]

I have a calendar of saints in the Roman Catholic Church. On each date, the calendar lists which individual saints have a designated "feast day" for that date. Next to the saint's name, it will list specific designations, titles, or honors for that saint. For example, the list might include designations such as: Pope; Martyr; Patron Saint of (such-and-such); Founder of (such-and-such); Priest; Abbott; Apostle; Bishop; Archangel; and so forth. There are two specific designations about which I am curious. One is "widow/widower". The other is "virgin". Why would it be considered a religious or saintly "honor" or designation that an individual is a widow/widower? That simply means that one's spouse has died, correct? Why would that be considered a title of honor? Same question for "virgin". Is it considered "saintly" and a "virtue" if a woman dies a virgin? If so, that seems to contradict the importance of perpetuating the human race and families. Does that same "honor" (virgin) ever get applied to males? Why are these two titles (widow/widower and virgin) important in a list of saints? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:39, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for whoever created the calendar, but I would expect that the designation of "widow" is applied primarily to women who have been widows for most of their lives (and likewise for the widowers). It may be implied that they chose to remain unmarried (just like saints who died as virgins) in order to devote their life to the service of God. - Lindert (talk) 17:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of complex questions! Briefly, the odd-seeming confluence of virgins and widows in your contemporary calendar of saints has its justification and counterpart in the contemporary (1993) Catechism of the Catholic Church §922 "Consecrated Virgins and Widows" - see article Consecrated life for more connections. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 18:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph A. Spadaro - traditionally there has been some reluctance to canonize women who were in an ordinary marriage at the time of their deaths, so most female saints fall into the categories of "virgin" (never married) or "widowed"... AnonMoos (talk) 23:57, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Consider a couple of spots where widows are mentioned in the New Testament: Anna the Prophetess, who had a short marriage and then lived as a widow for a long time (the translation is uncertain), and a large chunk of 1 Timothy 5, which praises godly-and-poor widows and includes a passage (verses 11-12) with a frequently-disputed meaning that discusses remarriage. Nyttend (talk) 02:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Building on the virgins bit, throughout history the relevant chunks of 1 Corinthians 7 have often been taken to say basically "marriage is good, but celibacy is better, if you can do it". Also see the editors' intro to St. Augustine's writings on marriage, as published by New Advent. Nyttend (talk) 02:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual morality is a big deal in Catholic and Christian history. "Virgin" status was seen for several centuries as being an "ideal" state, but it was not thought to be unreasonable to designate women who had been married, and presumably sexually active, but became (presumably) celibate after the sometimes quite early death of their spouse. There are even cases reported of married couples who mutually agreed to live a celibate, non-sexually-active, lifestyle in marriage. Also, unfortunately, earlier history being what it was, there weren't a lot of other "achievements" most women would be thought able to generally arise to. They clearly don't generally historically often make it to the level of archbishop, or doctor of the church, or some of the other "major" or at least less frequent titles given to saints. John Carter (talk) 15:20, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]