Humanities desk
< May 20	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 22 >

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.

May 21

Painting of a woman with butterflies on her eyes and mouth

I'm trying to identify a painting I once saw of a woman (possibly blue skinned)with long dark hair and butterflies obscuring her eyes and mouth. I saw the painting about ten years ago in a book about surrealism. The painting was coupled with a short paragraph describing the painting as a portrait of the artist's wife, who was a poet or writer. Can anyone tell me the name of this painting, or suggest a possible artist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Little radiolarian (talk • contribs) 00:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Winged Domino by Roland Penrose? Seen here. It's of his wife, Valentine Boué. Gwinva (talk) 00:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! That's it. Thank you very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Little radiolarian (talk • contribs) 11:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Upper class

I want to know about the composition of upper class. I have read wikipedia article. We know wealthy industrialists belong to the uppper class. My question is do university professors belong to upper class? or wealth is the only factor to determine upper class? --Amateur soiologist (talk) 11:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would depend on whose definition you use. "Upper class" is a pretty vague term. Gabbe (talk) 12:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Upper class in the USA is largely based on several generations of wealth, whereas in Europe and Asia it is a privileged class, deriving from ancestry and landed holdings; money alone does not permit entry.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Education and occupation may also be a factor. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, I would not agree that either occupation or level of education are factors - type of education, for example if someone went to Eton College or Oxbridge, may be a factor to some extent, but as Jeanne Boleyn says the term really now relates to ancestry and family land holdings. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An example of how education alone does not determine class in the UK is provided by David Bowie, who sent his son to Gordonstoun. While that is undoubtedly a school for the upper and wealthy classes, his attendance does not automatically make Joe Bowie a member of the British upper class.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That example probably draws out the fact that it's a largely undefined characterisation now. Upper class and wealthy are not synonymous, although we'd generally see those that we'd perceive as upper class being educated at the upper echelon of public schools and certain colleges at the universities with the best reputations; Oxbridge, London.

Upper class is probably more easily identifiable by exclusion, although describing oneself a middle class has become fashionable in the last few years. Most of it is really by inference; employment, social capital, use of language (although that's not a great indicator) I would agree with KittyBrewster that education is a factor although predominantly university. It's probably more a question of looking at the whole package.

ALR (talk) 13:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This character - also here and here - would fit most criteria of being "upper class", but is (or at least claims to be) impoverished rather than rich. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a scenario that is reasonably common in what we'd traditionally view as upper class or landed gentry, whilst they might be reasonably high net worth individuals their cash flow is quite poor. An interesting illustration of the 100% inheritance tax idea up the page.

ALR (talk) 14:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the latter half of the 19th century many impoverished aristocratic British families sought to replenish their dwindling fortunes by marrying wealthy American heiresses such as Jennie Jerome and Frances Work (great-grandmother of Princess Diana]]. I cannot help thinking of one of the New York Astor millionaires paying a genealogist to invent a noble pedigree for his antecendants, when the first Astor was in fact a poor German immigrant without a trace of blue blood. Then there was Joe Kennedy boasting of his daughter-in-law's (Jacqueline Bouvier) noble French ancestry, when her great-grandfather was really a cabinet-maker from Orlèans. Joe completely ignored the fact that his own wife was a Fitzgerald, one of the most prestigious Norman families in Ireland! Class distinctions are bizarre in the USA; however, as in the UK, a good university (especially one of the Ivy League schools) or finishing school raises the tone somewhat.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeanne, I think you're mixing up your antecedents (who precede you) with your descendants (who follow you). -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jack, but I was/am aware of the difference. While my high school certainly was not the best Los Angeles had to offer, I learned enough to know that ante means before! I'd made a mistake in saying for instead of of, hence the confusion. Indeed, it would be a rare optimist (or mayhap clairvoyant) who would do a pedigree on his future descendants!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the American south, you have impoverished families descended from old Virginian landed dynasties such as the Byrds, Lees, Rolfes, etc.; these would be regarded as upper class. Also let us not forget the French and Spanish families of Louisiana such as the Beauregards, Almonsters, de la Rondes.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who regards them as upper class, and in what way? I think, if they have no money, most regard their connection to a glorious American past, generations back, as a minor curiosity, even as somewhat shameful, because of an implication, however misplaced, that there was some personal shortcoming that led to the loss of wealth. But I could be mistaken. Bus stop (talk) 13:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Class is an important factor in the south. Have you ever read any of Tennessee Williams' plays or novels by Frances Parkinson Keyes? Remember many early Virginians were younger sons of English landed gentry. I had a mother who was a southerner. Oh, the personal shortcoming that led to their loss of wealth was a wee event known as the American Civil War or War of Northern Aggression as it's known down home.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not well-read. But I'm a "northerner," I think. I like Jimmy Dale Gilmore. I'm sure you're right. I just wasn't familiar with that phenomenon. I will have to try to read some of these things. Thanks. Bus stop (talk) 13:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Tennessee Williams play was made into a memorable film in 1966 starring Robert Redford and Natalie Wood. It's called This Property is Condemned. I highly recommend it. Charles Bronson is also in it. Then there is the classic A Streetcar Named Desire which is set in New Orleans. --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, I like Shelby Foote a lot too, but I only know him from narrating some TV documentaries. I understand he is a very important historian. Bus stop (talk) 14:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I know "A Streetcar Named Desire." Stella! Bus stop (talk) 13:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[Class distinctions are not always observed. (http://multilingualbible.com/james/2-1.htm; http://multilingualbible.com/james/2-2.htm; http://multilingualbible.com/james/2-3.htm; http://multilingualbible.com/james/2-4.htm) -- Wavelength (talk) 15:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)][reply]

I concur with Gabbe's assessment. The most facile determinant is economic clout, but as a humanist, I for one am more interested in moral, ethical, intellectual, emotional elevation. It means more in the end, than how many summer homes in New Hampshire you own. Vranak (talk) 18:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the end, class is how you are perceived by others. A definition of "upper class" that doesn't include Bill Clinton is hollow. Perhaps, like political "left" and "right" it's a category whose usefulness has run out.--Wetman (talk) 20:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, about the perceptions of others. In Australia, the class system has never really applied. Sure, there are rich families and poor families, but there's no such thing as any kind of automatically better service just because you're rich. There are some people who congregate around the Double Bay (Sydney), Toorak (Melbourne) and similar areas of the other metropolises, who would no doubt see themselves as "upper class", but we ordinary people just see them as a bunch of tossers, and they regularly get brought down a few notches on TV (Kath and Kim, etc.). Many of them are very down to earth anyway: Lindsay Fox is a billionaire who regularly hobnobs with the privileged classes in his work with government committees and the like, but his background was a truck driver and he still refuses to wear a business coat and tie, preferring an open necked shirt and his trademark jumper. Just call him Lindsay, none of this "Mr Fox" stuff. Same goes for prime ministers - journos often address them by their first name. Anyone who assumes aristocratic airs and requires such respect from others, is given very short shrift here. We the people decide who gets respect, and in what form that respect is given. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our article Professors in the United States says the average salary of a full professor is $99,000. According to our article Household income in the United States, you needed $88,030 in annual household income to be in the top 20% and $157,176 to be in the top 5% in 2004. Most people would probably classify most university professors as "upper middle class" rather than "rich." A term like "upper class" or "middle class" has no official definition, at least in the U.S., and so is really in the eye of the beholder. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK a person's accent is often a clear indication of which social strata he or she occupies. Then, there are also many sub-classes. In America, accents are not necessarily indicators; however, somehow I don't think you'd find many girls in exclusive New England finishing schools who talk like Lynddie England.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Two comments (in different directions, to make it interesting ;-): First, relatively few professors in the US are full professors - when I worked there, the head of the department was an associate professor. Secondly, you are comparing single-earner income to household incomes. I would expect many academic households to have two decent incomes. I'll have to admit the original question has me stumped a bit. I don't think there is a single answer. Class perception not very strong among most academics, so there is no strong self-identification. From the income and life-style, I would classify most tenured professors as middle class, though - they have less income than many other professionals, but better job security. Untenured assistant professors are about as close to slaves as you can come in modern society ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did the Western Allies ever consider sending ground troops to fight on the Eastern Front during WW2

Did the Western Allies ever consider sending ground troops to fight on the Eastern Front during WW2?--Gary123 (talk) 17:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From a Wikipedia standpoint, our articles Eastern Front (World War II) and Operation Barbarossa are silent on this, and are even silent about the repeated Soviet demands of England and the US that they invade German-occupied territory from the west in order to try to force Germany to detach some forces from the Eastern Front. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Free French did because de Gaulle wanted participation in every theatre. But from a western Allied point of view, they had their own priorities, which didn't include helping the Soviets over-run almost the whole of Europe. The British were involved in various campaigns in North Africa, Greece, Italy. As usual, the Americans turned up late. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.40.58 (talk) 19:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC) — 86.143.40.58 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Nice soapboxing attack. Edison (talk) 19:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Americans "turned up late" because many Americans thought it wasn't their war. Just as many Europeans now think the War on Terror is not their war. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't reply to a soapboxing reply with another soapboxing reply. Two wrongs and all that ... --Saddhiyama (talk) 00:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fond of soap. I use it every day. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You couldn't tell by the smell! ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, British Imperial forces were already heavily committed and the experience of the Arctic convoys was that the Russians were quite hostile to Imperial forces being on Russian territory uncontrolled, with heavily restricted movement.

It's also worth considering the tensions resulting from the treatment of British forces following the First World War.

ALR (talk) 20:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was a handful of brave souls halted the Japanese advance in China by Gorilla Warfare. Some got the highest honour (American). The history of Singapore. Much of this is not in the public sector yet. MacOfJesus (talk) 21:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No wonder. :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hannibal tried elephants with questionable success. Gorillas apparently worked out better. Especially if they were also guerillas. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If their lengthy story were ever told, it could turn into a guerilla megillah. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the Soviet Union was ever short of personel - it was materiel they needed. Alansplodge (talk) 21:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the Russian Civil War (1917-1923) British, U.S. and French troops fought against the Soviets within the former Russian Empire, as well as supporting the anticommunist White Army. See American Expeditionary Force Siberia, Entente intervention in the Russian Civil War, North Russia Campaign, and Siberian Intervention. Stalin had probably seem quite enough "Allied" troops on Soviet soil. Edison (talk) 22:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not what you would consider "Eastern Front", but Churchill at various times suggested an invasion of the Balkans as an alternative to Anvil and possibly an alternative to Overlord. Such an invasion was never officially proposed, and it's unclear what exactly Churchill's thinking was beyond forestalling Soviet post-war influence in central and eastern Europe.—eric 23:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've located a reference stating that the reverse was suggested. Memoirs of the Second World War, by Winston Churchill (it's an abridgement of The Second World War), p. 477 in my edition. (There is a nice index; look up Second Front.) Churchill complains about Stalin relentlessly insisting on a quick invasion and establishment of a western front, in the face of insurmountable obstacles; and writes, "Stalin even suggested to me on one occasion later on that if the British were afraid he would be willing to send round three or four Russian Army Corps to do the job. It was not in my power, through lack of shipping and other physical facts, to take him at his word." He goes on to mention Stalin's suggestion for an invasion through the north, and also mentions that Britain sent two Hurricane squadrons to Murmansk to cooperate with Russian forces and help defend the naval base. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

13th century feminist writer?

Is there any? I found a reference in a stupid essay by an idiot. Since it is written in a phonetic language there is no getting the spelling. It could be Zhan Demunga or Jean Demunga or Jeanne Demunga or something else. No nationality, no work named etc. Anybody knows? --117.204.80.35 (talk) 19:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joan de Munchensi perhaps? The article doesn't mention any of her own writings, but she does seem to have been a woman of letters. I couldn't find anything similar sounding under Category:13th-century women writers. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would any literate woman whose writings survive be a feminist, then?--Wetman (talk) 20:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was there any other information in the essay? Any works? How was the name spelled in the essay? Adam Bishop (talk) 20:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It need not be 13th century, necessarily. The guy mentions Christine de Pizan as a 14th century writer while her literary career mostly belonged to 15th. He can easily mix up centuries. Being written in a phonetic language it is impossible to guess the actual spelling in Roman alphabet. No work is named no other detail available. --117.204.81.141 (talk) 20:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"...in a stupid essay by an idiot"? Can you point us to the link for that? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weeeeell ... if the guy was an idiot, I guess anything is possible, and it could also be the male author Jean de Meung whose depiction of corporal amour was attacked by Christine de Pizan (who is often categorized as feminist . :-) ---Sluzzelin talk 20:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, some confusion about Jean de Meung seems the most likely explanation. For what it's worth, I can find no (other) entry in the index of Peter Dronke's Women Writers of the Middle Ages that could correspond to anything like this name. Deor (talk) 20:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The scary part is that despite the insult, the OP is treating it like a reliable source. That's something that never happens on wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think she is treating it like a reliable source (I assume your next comment was meant ironically). I think she simply wants to know who the hell the essayist is referring to. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sluzzelin. You have put your finger on the party. The guy, I am sure, confused him for a female feminist author. Anything is possible with him. Somebody wanted the link? Here it is but it is no use. I am not going to take it as reliable source but going to take it to pieces in my blog. To give you just one example, the guy says that Mary Wollstonecraft was pregnant with her first child from her lover when she married Godwin. He also gives the name of the child: Fanny Mary Wollstone Craft! He apparently mixed up the names of her two daughters. --117.204.80.206 (talk) 21:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would still like to know what essay the OP is referring to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball_Bugs, I linked it above. Since it is written in an Indian local language it is unfortunately of no use to any of you. The 'essay' actually appeared in a periodical and it has been reproduced on that blog I linked above.--117.204.80.206 (talk) 22:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so what's the "stupid essay by an idiot" all about? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:13, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's about the history of feminism. The guy talks all sorts of atrocious nonsense like asserting that Jean de Meung along with Christine de Pisan were advocates of early feminist ideas.--117.204.80.206 (talk) 01:40, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't sound so absurd to me...but then I am a useless academic. It's not my field but I'm sure people have made that argument before. (It involves lots and lots of strange magic called Theory, about which I know nothing!) Adam Bishop (talk) 02:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not so, Adam Bishop. This guy was talking about Jean de Meun as if he were a woman.--117.207.147.208 (talk) 10:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]