Humanities desk
< December 26	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 28 >

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.

December 27[edit]

Translations[edit]

Can somebody tell me where I can find Engish-language translations of the following Arabic books:

Al-Bidayah wa'an-Nihayah (Ibn Kathir)
Tarikh ul-Islam (Al-Dhahabi)
Tarikh ul-Khulafa (Al-Suyuti)
Dawlat al-Islām fī al-Andalus (Muḥammad ʻAbd Allāh ʻInān)

The ⬡ Bestagon^[t][c] 08:07, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a translation, published in 1881, of al-Suyuti's History of the Caliphs. A translation of Ibn Kathir's The Beginning and the End is published in several volumes by Darussalam ([1] [2]), though it appears to be abridged. I can't immediately locate translations of the other two. Shells-shells (talk) 09:51, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The History Of The Khalifahs Who Took The Right Way (1995). Alansplodge (talk) 11:46, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paintings[edit]

Even if from a TV animation, the design suggests that these painting are from real-world: 1, 2a, 2b. Please, can you search their names? Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.234.15.249 (talk) 10:39, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As others and myself have replied to your previous similar questions, the paintings in these pictures are very generic. While they may be based on actual paintings, which is far from certain, they are not representations of famous paintings that a viewer versed in western art history would immediately identify. The purpose is to make them look like the type of western art wealthy collectors could have hanging around their properties, and not to duplicate specific paintings. Xuxl (talk) 13:27, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the context in the animated series, but if the paintings are indeed meant to suggest wealth, they cannot be famous paintings. Almost all famous paintings are in musea; one seen hanging on the wall of a residence would be a reproduction, not befitting the residents' supposed wealth. --Lambiam 17:45, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.207.132.180 (talk) 17:52, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Blueboar (talk) 18:03, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They don't look recognizable to me. But it's fiction, and the rich man at the beginning of Alien: Covenant had the statue of David. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:02, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's an intewresting question: are there really no more truely important pictures in private ownership (incl. commercial galleries)? 1.) I would think, that tons of work from, say 1980 to 2020, are and will be privately owned. Too Video, too large, too expansive for public musea/art- galleries. 2.) Even for older artworks: all the museum collections used to be privately owned, so maybe there are some private collections left? And importance may not be the same as being famous: works in public collections may simply be more in mass media. 3.) And then there is the question of ownership vs. public musea in places like Japan (or Arabia) and of non-Western art in general. Are all the most important tapestries or calligraphy really in public places? 4.) A different problem: how much of publical owned art can actually never (never!) be seen by the public; because it is left to rot, so to speak, in the depot? 90%, 80%, 70%, 60%?--Ralfdetlef (talk) 06:46, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Number 2 is quite true: encyclopedias and other reference works about painters tend to mainly use reproductions of works that are in museums. However, some works held by private collectors are quite famous, because they either get loaned to museums to be part of temporary exhibits, or because they get publicized when sold at auction (Van Gogh's Irises was a famous example before being acquired by the Getty Museum). Such works are worth a fortune (literally) and are not left to rot: exhibiting them for public viewing and licensing reproduction rights are some ways to recoup the massive cost of insuring them. But the paintings in the cartoon are simply very generic, with few distinguishing features and look like run-of-the-mill late 18th century/early 19th century figurative art. Exactly the sort of art that's expensive enough for private collectors to seek, but not so expensive that they could only end up in a museum or in a highly-prestigious private collection. It's of course different for more recent works of art, as private collectors are the primary market for these, and only a few pieces end up in museums in the short term, before inheritance laws and other factors start to intervene. Xuxl (talk) 15:01, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then second one is probably a France vineyard, for example Chateaux de Rully or other similars. Can you search in this way? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.35.154.132 (talk) 14:11, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

79.35… please stop. What people are repeatedly telling you is that the art works depicted in the cartoon are not actual, real life paintings… and are not depictions of real life places. The art works depicted in the cartoon evoke real life artistic styles, but they are imaginary works. Thus, we can not answer your questions. Blueboar (talk) 22:20, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but it could be modeled after one of those places. Can you search if exist one similar to it? Thank you very much.

sigh… at this point I think we must invoke “Do not feed the trolls”! Blueboar (talk) 22:54, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please, can you look for that, so it's definitely closed? Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.15.2.160 (talk) 11:55, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]