Humanities desk
< February 27	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 29 >

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.

February 28

Why are demons/devils/The Devil depicted as having features of sheep or goats?

Question as topic. Is it something from the Bible? --95.150.167.181 (talk) 00:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably not from the Bible (though see the article on Azazel) but more likely from a later period in Christianity. See the articles on Christian_teaching_about_the_Devil#Middle_Ages, on Horned God, and on Baphomet for some thoughts and theories. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the standard illustration of Baphomet which gets endlessly repeated (including by Satanists), is by mid 19th century French occultist Eliphas Levi, and appears to owe a lot to his personal imagination... AnonMoos (talk) 07:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the frivolity of this reference and for not following up this reference's references, no time; but in this article George Lucas is quoted as claiming that he or his minions researched Hindu and Greek mythology when designing Darth Maul, and he is quoted as saying that "A lot of evil characters have horns", so it may be from earlier than the Bible. Though our Darth Maul article also claims that the original concept was that he had feathers, so I'm not sure where that leaves us. Comet Tuttle (talk) 01:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, I just found Demonization of horned deities which refers to the Book of Revelation. Sorry about my careless quick reply above. The examples of Moloch or Shedu are not evil in their own mythological narrative. Most of the earlier horned deities mentioned in that article, including Hindu (Pushan) and Egyptian/Greek (Amun) are powerful non-evil (often solar) deities. The faun, however, is certainly not an unambiguous force of good, and there are all sorts of hybrid creatures in Mesopotamian mythology (e.g.), so you make a good point. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) Also see Goats in religion, mythology, and folklore. It probably comes from two sources: the tradition of the Scapegoat and (as Sluzzelin mentions) from Christian demonization of pagan horned deities such as Pan and Faunus. Lithoderm 01:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This dictionary of symbols is an interesting source: the Goat's main symbolic attribute is virility- which can be positive (the Yule Goat) or negative (the Scapegoat) depending on your religion's moral outlook. Lithoderm 02:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's a bizarre reference in Plutarch (I think) where Pan actually dies, and this was interpreted by Christians as a victory of Christianity over paganism. Maybe that is linked to this somehow. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was Plutarch. Our page on Pan gives the reference as Moralia, Book 5:17, but it also comes out against any ancient connection between Pan and Satan. --Antiquary (talk) 18:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To give a counter example, Moses is sometimes depicted as having horns when he descends from the mountain with the Ten Commandments. This was due to a mistranslation in the Vulgate. See here for Michelangelo's statue. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There was also the Golden calf, the manifestation of everything bad about the Jews, according to the Bible. StuRat (talk) 09:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I spent a day pondering what this was supposed to mean, and I give up. According to where in the Bible is the golden calf "the manifestation of everything bad about the Jews"? What does that even mean? That if the Jews got rid of their cloven hooves and cud chewing they would be perfect? That all the bad in them became manifest in the golden calf, and hence destroyed at the beginning of the Exodus? Surely the golden calf was just the Israelites looking for an easily comprehended god to worship, seeking to make an idol of God? Put me out of my misery, please. 86.164.69.124 (talk) 10:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to our article "The calf was intended to be a physical representation of the God of Israel, and therefore was doubly wrong for involving Israel in idolatry and for ascribing physicality to God". In short, it was the opposite of everything God (or at least Moses) wanted the Jews to believe. StuRat (talk) 22:45, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see. So you meant, "it was the opposite of everything God wanted them to believe", which sounds quite different to me. It still isn't really accurate though: that's only the opposite of what he wanted them to believe about God's physicality. The Bible is full of messages that what God wants is for the Israelites to show charity and justice and mercy to at least the other Israelites, as well as worship God in specific ways, and other things too. Even just the ten commandments are not all "I am a God without physicality, so the worst thing you can do is make an idol of me". There are loads of other things which are not the opposite of the golden calf. 86.164.69.124 (talk) 12:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Second Commandment ("Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth") makes it clear that this was very important to God (or to Moses, at least, if we assume he actually wrote it). Noting that there are no commandments against rape or slavery, it would be fair to say that God/Moses even considered this to be a worse crime. Yes, this seems very odd according to modern morality, but they apparently saw things quite differently then. StuRat (talk) 17:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also regarding your original question: it's definitely just goats, not sheep. Sheep have a very different symbolic meaning in Christianity- see Agnus Dei, sacrificial lamb, Good Shepherd, Parable of the Lost Sheep, and especially The Sheep and the Goats. Lithoderm 20:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But other horned animals, including random "beasts", also tend to be seen as evil. StuRat (talk) 06:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a thought -- the general depiction of Satan with hooves and horns and all that may be related to the identification (fairly ancient) in Judaeo-Christian theology of mythological beings like satyrs with evil spirits and demons. I can't find any sources on that right now, but I know it was present in Hellenistic Judaism probably toward the beginning of the Common Era. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 02:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Literature dealing with Multicultural Britain

Is there any fiction dealing with multicultural Britain like a fiction that has a main character who is a South Asian, regardless he is a Pakistani, Indian, Bangladeshi and Sri Lankan? Same thing with Arab, African British-both Caribbean and Africa, Malaysian, Afghanistani main characters? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.41.68 (talk) 03:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start the list with White Teeth. ---Sluzzelin talk 03:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of these. See Half a Life (novel), The Enigma of Arrival, Anita and Me. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 06:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You might find some ideas at Category:Postcolonial_literature. BrainyBabe (talk) 06:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My Beautiful Launderette was one of the first of this genre ISTR. --TammyMoet (talk)

Brick Lane by Monica Ali is one of the best known, being set in the Bangladeshi community in London, though it's controversial (some people have accused it of portraying people from Sylhet in a bad light). Smurrayinchester 14:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many more recommendations from the British Council here. --Antiquary (talk) 18:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

East is East, Bend it like Beckham, Anita and me… CS Miller (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I Proud To Be An Indian was a 2004 Bollywood film about Asians living in London. (I've just read the question properly and realised that it was about literature - hey ho!) Alansplodge (talk) 10:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

George Wallace delegates in 1972 election

How many delegates did George Wallace have at the 1972 convention? His artcle mentions some of the primaries he won, but not how many delgates he got total. RudolfRed (talk) 03:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1972 Democratic National Convention#Delegate vote for presidential nomination says 382. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:38, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Impossibilty of feeling or conveying sorrow

We sometimes hear people saying things like "He wasn’t sorry for what he did, he was only sorry for being caught". That may be fair comment in some cases. The question then arises as to whether there’s some sort of threshold beyond which it is impossible either to convey to others your feelings of sorrow and remorse for your actions, or maybe even to have such feelings at all. The thinking might be, if they have the capacity to sink to such depths of depravity and vileness, then how could they also have the capacity to understand what it would mean to be the victim of such actions or a member of a grieving family?

Are there actions that are considered so bad, so evil, so inhuman, that would place the doer in a position where, even if they really did have feelings of remorse or sorrow for their actions, nobody would ever believe them?

To take a concrete case: if Hitler had been captured, and sometime down the track he said he was sorry for all the atrocities he ordered or were committed under his name, could anyone ever believe he meant it? Could he ever truly communicate to other human beings his feelings of remorse and sorrow, even if they were genuine? And if not, would that have more to do with an innate incapacity on his part to feel genuine remorse, or with the (understandable) total lack of trust on the part of others? They'd likely figure that he didn't exterminate 6 million-plus people in order to inflict pain on those left over. No, he did it to get rid of them because they were (in his mind) fundamentally inferior, pure and simple. It was as clinical and black-and-white as that, and the feelings of humans didn't enter into his world view at all, so there's no way he could ever comprehend the enormity of his own actions. Therefore, any expressions of regret should be totally discounted as the machinations of a master manipulator.

Longish question, and I'd be surprised if there are any immediately relevant references, but any pointers to thinking about this sort of subject would be welcome. Thanks. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 03:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Concepts such as Conscience and Empathy (and the lack thereof) come to mind. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Surely also contrition and penance. Whether one is a theist or an atheist, these concepts are central to much or most of Western thought on such matters in the past couple of millennia. The Christian view is also, in its way, not entirely impractical: whether the remorse is genuine is ultimately between the penitent sinner and God.--Rallette (talk) 06:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The question must be asked, If someone still lacks a conscience by the time they reach adulthood, how likely are they to somehow get one? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My suspicion is that "having a conscience" is not a binary "yes-no" condition, but has complex structure and degrees, and is subject to modification over time. Of course, without working telepathy or telempathy, we can never be sure about another's internal mental state. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.193 (talk) 13:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have Asperger's and I have an empathy disfuction, it's not to say that I can't just that I'm bad at it. Although, I've created a kind of supplemental artificial detection system. Sometimes, I forget to use it and I come across as rude or insensitive. Plasmic Physics (talk) 10:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a really tricky thing. When we hear of someone's tale of woe and misery and their life in ruins, we might feel genuine empathy for them but still find ourselves thinking "If that had to happen to anyone, I'm glad it wasn't me". It's not the same as "I'm glad it's your problem and not mine", but it's a close second. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 18:25, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "There but for the Grace of God goes I" is a common way to explain that sentiment. One can be both empathatic with the sufferer, and relieved that onesself is not also suffering. I'd fathom such a combination of emotions is rather common in humans. --Jayron32 18:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Please walk a mile in my shoes before judging" - "No thanks, I'm happy just looking. Lovely shoes you've got there.". -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 18:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FBI-Spanish refugees incident in the '40s.

Hello learned humanitarians ! I've read (& can't find again where) that in the early '40s, Hemingway, among others VIP, signed a petition against the ways of the FBI : G men had stongly repressed an ex-Spanish-republicans refugees protest march in the center of the USA (anyway in neighbour France our then socialist gvt didn't do much better at the time, & by far...). Can someone give me some references about that incident ? Thanks a lot beforehand. Arapaima (talk) 10:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Hemingway didn't seem to show the slightest concern about the fate of José Robles... AnonMoos (talk) 19:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually "Hemingway condoned the killing, as "necessary in time of war" , says WP en. Thanks AnoonMoos. But what about the later USA incident ? Arapaima (talk) 11:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the book ISBN 0-02-918730-3, it's pretty clear that Hemingway was personally nasty towards Dos Passos (for being persistent about the case of the disappeared Robles) in a manner which destroyed their friendship for ever. It was really not one of Hemingway's finer moments (unless you think that extreme measures in defense of the NKVD is no vice). AnonMoos (talk) 20:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, without actually hitting a library I can only dig up these two references at the moment that even mention it. The incident (whatever it was) took place in Detroit in 1940, and that's all I've got. Tangentially (re: Hemingway/Robles), this New Yorker review has put this book by that same author on my upcoming reading list. ☯.Zen Swashbuckler.☠ 21:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot to both Arapaima (talk) 10:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The nineteen propositions of John Wycliffe

Our article on Pope Gregory XI talk of the "nineteen propositions of John Wycliffe." However I can not find them in the John Wycliffe article. What are they?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 14:43, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They were nineteen sentences scattered throughout Wyclif's writings that were condemned by the Pope. Actually there seems to be 24 but I suppose it depends on how they are split up. Here is the papal bull condemning Wyclif, the 24 sentences, and Wyclif's response. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:43, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give me more details on There were nineteen sentences scattered throughout Wyclif's writings that were condemned by the Pope. I am interested how the initial editor came up with 19 instead of what appears to be really 24 .--Doug Coldwell ^talk 22:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe I found the answer to my question here.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 22:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also noticed that sometimes they are counted as 18 rather than 19. But apparently I found a different list than the original 19? These 24 were a separate condemnation? Hmm. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the thirteen articles of the Sachsenspiegel

Our article on Pope Gregory XI talk of "the thirteen articles of the Sachsenspiegel" were formally condemned by Pope Gregory XI in 1377. However I can not find them anywhere in any article. What are they?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 20:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently these 14 limited the rights of the Pope in and provided for "unchristian" means of reaching a verdict. The German wiki article on Gregory XI repeats the "13" error, but see de:Johannes Klenkok, here and here and here. The best explanation is [here, at least at first glance. I'll try and translate a bit. 74.131.181.240 (talk) 20:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, that was me. I was logged out somehow. Lithoderm 20:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For those who can read medieval Lower German in Fraktura, the Sachsenspiegel has been digitalised and can be can be perused here. --Incognito.ergo.possum (talk) 20:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, here we go. "... The Sachsenspiegel... maintained the predilection of traditional Germanic law to prevent the alienation of family property by granting inheritance rights to the extended family." and "...Germanic particulars of the Sachsenspiegel- the use of ordeal and oaths; the denial of rights to illegitimate children subsequently brought, with the mother, into a legitimate marriage; limitations imposed against testators; and the ability of monks and novices to receive inheritances." Lithoderm 21:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore: "... the freedom of testators to act without the consent of their heirs... the problems of inheritance frequently vexed friars, whose penitential work often left them witnesses in and executors of testaments, and whose cloisters were recipients of inheritances. The matter of monastic inheritance is similar, for the property would accrue to the cloister, not to the individual friar... The Sachsenspiegel merely hoped to prevent the alienation of estate property to the coffers of the church..." (p. 65) Lithoderm 21:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be 16 total articles? --Doug Coldwell ^talk 21:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All my sources say 14... I can't find the papal bull anywhere online, either, and the book I'm quoting from never gets around to listing them. "1374 verdammte Gregor XI. in der Bulle Salvator humani generis 14 der von Klenkok kritisierten Artikel des Sachsenspiegels..." NDB Lithoderm 21:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The ADB says: "14 von den 21 durch Klenkok hervorgehobenen Stellen" - that is to say, 14 of the 21 articles opposed by Klenkok were formally condemned. There were plenty more articles- we were never talking about a total. The erroneous "the 13 articles of the Sachsenspiegel", as if there were only 13, seems to date back to the 1902 Britannica. Lithoderm 21:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, these texts say only that 14 articles were condemned. If you look at the original manuscript, you will see that the articles appear to be numbered with little Roman numerals. There seem to be seven series of Roman numerals (each series probably corresponding to a section of the document). According to my count, there are a total of 216 articles. Marco polo (talk) 21:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've looked and looked, but I can't find the papal bull or Klenkok's writings anywhere online. So we don't know their exact contents, but the main point of contention seemed to be that it prevented the Church from inheriting money or land that mendicant friars were heirs to. It's not clear whether the inheritance would have gone to the next closest relatives instead, or to the feudal lord, or what. Whatever the condemned articles were, this article indicates that the Bull had little to no effect: " Doch hatten diese Bestrebungen nur geringen Erfolg, indem nur wenig Spuren erhalten sind, daß man die Articuli reprobati auch wirklich als solche behandelte...". Lithoderm 22:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the extensive research and detailed answers.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 22:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Latin text of the bull seems to be in this book. As mentioned, the Sachsenspiegel is rather large, and only specific parts of it were being condemned here (as with Wyclif's writings, in the previous question). Adam Bishop (talk) 08:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Company sizes

I'm looking for turnover data on companies that have existed 10 years or more. How many of them have become huge (Google-like), how many have done very well with a turnover of 20 million, and how many have about the same turnover they had after 5 years which at the time payed also the bills but didn't allow for that swimming pool. To me it feels logical that you'd either had a very good idea for a company and it would keep on growing (2%), or a bad idea and go bankrupt (the other 98%) and the market would have settled that after 5 years. My impression is however that most (95% or more) companies that live after 10 years remain in between: earning enough profit to stay in business, but somehow not being able to grow to a size that would make the owner wealthy. Is such data available? Joepnl (talk) 22:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't address your question about turnover (revenue) data, but I would note that not all companies, especially not all small businesses, that close actually do so by declaring bankruptcy. Lots of small businesses just close their doors and the owners get jobs without owing anybody any money, hence no advantage in declaring bankruptcy. I also have to point out that a "very good idea" is not the most important part of any company's success, but I'm sure you know that; time and chance happeneth to them all. This link has a lot of statistics that may help. This US census page about businesses, too. (Sorry.) Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links! Joepnl (talk) 21:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not all business are scalable, so they don't have the potential to become the next Google, however well things go. A small shop, say. It's probably successful because it is owned by the person that runs it and does most of the work, so they are motivated to work really hard and come up with and try new ideas. It also has that small, personal feel that customers like. There is no way to turn that into a multi-billion dollar business because any attempt to do so would make it lose the things that make it a success, but it can still be a very successful small business that can keep going for decades. --Tango (talk) 00:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, true. But that's only partly true for for instance for the software and hosting industry. There are a few obvious winners, but from personal experience there are an amazing number of companies that have just enough clients for their CMS or hosting solution which are very scalable. Another example is the number companies that design web sites and have grown big enough to have a sales person and a few designers. There are very few of those that have grown to be big (or actually, the big ones used to be the old advertising firms). Joepnl (talk) 21:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]