Humanities desk
< May 17	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 19 >

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

May 18[edit]

The Gyges, Lord of the Ring?[edit]

I don't understand why no connection is drawn between The Lord of the Rings and Plato's Myth of Ring of Gyges.
To me it seems quite amazing how similar the stories around the ring are after all. Should that just be a coincidence? 2A02:908:424:9D60:1728:3390:1D6B:BA69 (talk) 09:26, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Who says no connection is drawn? Wikipedia draws attention to the connection for a start. Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:48, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The passage was just removed as OR because it referenced "self-published" course material from an introduction to philosophy course from the Department of Philosophy of Oregon State University. --Lambiam 19:56, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The invisibility power is pretty much the only thing the two have in common. Tokien was not very interested in Mediterranean mythologies, but he of course received a basic Classical education of the type that was commonly given to middle-class boys in England at that time. There's a little discussion near the bottom of the Ring of Gyges article... AnonMoos (talk) 09:54, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another commonality is that the ring bearer is corrupted by the ring. No just man who puts it on "can be imagined to be of such an iron nature that he would stand fast in justice". --Lambiam 20:15, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

However, someone who puts on Tolkien's One Ring is corrupted by the malevolent magical spells in the ring, while someone who puts on the Ring of Gyges is morally tempted and corrupted by having power without any social accountability. AnonMoos (talk) 21:28, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A quick web search finds many comparisons between LOTR and the Ring of Gyges. I don't think whoever did that revert helped the encyclopedia with it. There are many works Tolkien studies including whole journals like Mallorn. It would surprise me if the Ring of Gyges never comes up in them. 2601:644:8500:B770:0:0:0:BD59 (talk) 23:54, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Find a reliable source with actual evidence that Tolkien had Gyges in mind. -- Elphion (talk) 20:52, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apollo 2 cancellation[edit]

Today's featured article Apollo 10 says "After the prime crew of Apollo 2, led by Wally Schirra, went to NASA management with a list of demands concerning their mission, Apollo 2 was cancelled in November 1966". ("Apollo 2" would have been the name of mission AS-205.) I also find in Canceled Apollo missions "The AS-205 crew were Wally Schirra, Donn Eisele and Walter Cunningham. However, AS-205 was later deemed unnecessary and officially cancelled on December 22, 1966." Finally, note 2 for that article says "Not long after Gemini 12 splashed down on November 15, 1966, George Mueller of the Office of Manned Spaceflight cancelled Apollo 2.

I would like to know more about this prime crew's list of demands, but everything else I can find about that mission just says it wasn't necessary. Hayttom (talk) 12:21, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The information is cited to two book sources, citations #18 and 19 in the article in question. That would probably be the first place you should look for your answers. --Jayron 32 13:20, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted that the numbering of the early Apollo missions is confused by the fact that the numbers were applied retrospectively and unofficially until Apollo 4. The real truth is that there was never any Apollo 2 or Apollo 3. Apollo 1 was not known as such until well after the fact, named retrospectively after the families of the deceased astronauts requested it. Apollo 4 (SA-501) was the first post-disaster launch in the Apollo program in November, 1967. Because there was never any flights formally designated as "Apollo 2" or "Apollo 3", there are conflicting accounts as to what flights those should have been, based mostly on the unofficial speculation of various people based mostly on what they "considered" to be Apollo 2, etc. Besides the cancelled AS-205, Apollo 2 was claimed to be for AS-201, which flew before the Apollo 1 disaster; as noted at Apollo 1#New mission naming scheme, George Mueller (engineer) thought of the first three test flights, AS-201, AS-202, and AS-204 as 1-3, though I'm not sure how universal that belief is. In summation, there was no actual Apollo 2, not even hypothetically or retrospectively, except in the minds of several different people who "considered" certain missions to be "Apollo 2". It just didn't exist. Same for Apollo 3, which you can see is variously applied to AS-202 or AS-203. --Jayron 32 13:32, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing that may confound searches is that AS-205 did officially launch; it was repurposed as Apollo 7, [1]. The AS numbers are also a bit inconsistent; with AS-2XX numbers applying to Saturn IB vehicles, and AS-5XX numbers applying to Saturn V vehicles. However, even the AS system is not without its inconsistencies. It appears to have been started midstream, with the original Saturn I launches numbered SA-1 to SA-10, however starting with SA-6, the vehicles were renumbered starting with AS-101. --Jayron 32 13:59, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at Newspapers.com (pay site), the fatal craft was being called "Apollo 1" even before the disaster. After that, obviously, the program was in disarray for a while. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:35, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sort-of. Internally and officially, it was only AS-204. The "Apollo 1" moniker was something the press had started calling it, but there was no official numbering system for the Apollo missions outside of the AS-XXX system. That changed after the disaster when Mueller officially designated Apollo 1 and, later, Apollo 4 onwards became official designations. AS-204 was also recycled for Apollo 5, FWIW, as the same launch vehicle was used. --Jayron 32 17:47, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shades of Star Wars retrospective episode numbering and retrospective sub-titling. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:21, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Like when the scroll started for The Empire Strikes Back it began "Episode V", and we're like "HUH?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:18, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From time to time I encounter someone saying that never happened, that IV was always IV. —Tamfang (talk) 23:05, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe they never saw the original in the theater on first release. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:30, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Citation #18 is a book which I don't think I'll buy. Citation #19 doesn't seem to mention the list of demands on the the cited page, but I might read the entire (free on-line) book anyway and may come across what I want to know. Hayttom (talk) 01:19, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rhyme scheme with apostrophes[edit]

I've been trying to update rhyme scheme with all the different notations people use for that idea, and get articles to use notation consistently. Does anyone know what the apostrophes mean in e.g. "ab' ab' b' aab'"? I see that on Comtessa de Dia. I dropped apostrophes from a similar string on Bestournés, on the assumption that this is the same as "AB AB B AAB". But now that I'm seeing it again, I'm not so sure? It's suspicious that the apostrophes seem to be separating stanzas, which is often seen e.g. "ab-ab-b-aab". -- Beland (talk) 18:12, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the uses by Bruckner,^[2] viz. ababc’ddc’ and ab’ab’b’aab’, there are no spaces. It does not seem to be separating stanzas in "Ab ioi". The scheme for the Bestournés song can be found in print here, together with numerous other examples. Note that this text uses two types of rhyme schemes, one with majuscules and no apostrophes, and one with minuscules and apostrophes. The introduction states that an apostrophe indicates "die überschüssige weibliche Endsilbe"^[3] ("the excess feminine [i.e., unstressed] final syllable"). I suppose that the stress in the b’ endings "-aia" of "Ab ioi" is on the penult. --Lambiam 08:06, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See also Masculine and feminine endings. This isn't anything to do with normal grammatical gender, but rather as poetic term referring to whether a word ends on a stressed or unstressed syllable. Generally, words with feminine endings are expected to rhyme their final two syllables, like "passion" with "fashion", which is considered a feminine rhyme. Words like "passion" and "luncheon", despite ending on the same sound, are not normally considered good rhyming candidates because the stressed syllables preceding the feminine ending don't rhyme. --Jayron 32 11:12, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes more than the final two syllables. A case in point: I maintain that "presbytery" and "respiratory" rhyme perfectly. At least, the way I pronounce the latter word (i.e. the correct way): RES-prə-tree. But if you want uncontroversial examples: biology and theology; reiterate and obliterate; etc. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:19, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]