Humanities desk
< December 11	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 13 >

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.

December 12

Jean Fouquet's Martyrdom of Saint Apollonia: What is this guy doing?

In Jean Fouquet's Martyrdom of Saint Apollonia is the guy standing with his back to us to the left of the guy pulling the saint's hair actually scratching his backside? And is he wearing some sort of weird underwear? Contact Basemetal here 14:17, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The image depicts a mystery play rather than the actual event. According to this article, the character you're asking about is a fool; "In the circus atmosphere of the mysteries and saint plays, as in the street plays, pageants, festivals and mummeries they sprang from, a fool or two is found almost as often as torturers and devils. The fool’s crude jokes and obscene gestures seem to complement the grim gallows humor of the torturers and the often hilarious costumes and antics of the devils. Fools and devils in particular had a lot in common. Like the devils, the fools often wore capes with asses’ ears or animal horns. At Chaumont the fools even called themselves “devils” (diables). The fool could also add, like the country bumpkins and village idiots (vilains) who often appear in these plays, local color, jokes, and commentary on the universal passions and sufferings presented". Alansplodge (talk) 14:37, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) In confirmation, I found a search result for a "snippet view" of The Northern Renaissance by Jeffrey Chipps Smith (2004) "On the left a fool heightens Apollonia's humiliation as he contemptuously scratches his bared bottom". Alansplodge (talk) 14:58, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Do you know by any chance if that piece of "underwear" as added later in a more prudish age? (Painted over Fouquet's work that is?) It looks a bit incongruous. It's hard to believe people in the Middle Ages wore that kind of transparent (lace?) underwear? Contact Basemetal here 14:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I refer you to this learned essay entitled Burgundian Noblemen’s Underclothes c1445-1475 which includes a detail of the fool's backside from the Fouquet miniture (on p. 25 discussing the fastening of hose). Also a webpage called A Survey of Medieval Underwear. Both suggest that linen would have been used. Realism isn't a strong point of medieval art, and it's plausible that it may have been intended to show wet linen (?). My view is that if someone had intended to obscure the fool's bottom, they didn't make a very good of it. Alansplodge (talk) 15:18, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot Alan. Very interesting documents. It'll be fun going thru them. Contact Basemetal here 15:55, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hand-gesture meanings in mediaeval MSS?

I'm prompted by a manuscript illustration in today's Featured Article to wonder if the various hand gestures often seen in such illustrations have specific meanings that were understood at the time, or were just the whim of individual illustrators. I'm aware that in later paintings some similar gestures had specific (usually religious) significances, but I'm not sure what terms to search on. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 15:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no special knowledge of the topic but this bibliography/list of references looks pretty good [1], and this research paper might also be useful [2]. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:10, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not medieval, but you can see Chironomia... -- AnonMoos (talk) 17:46, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Try to take in the whole picture. The important thing is that Henry is seated/enthroned, while Becket remains standing before him. This shows the pecking order. The King's hands show him trying to illustrate a point, and the fact that Becket is gesticulating at all probably means he is arguing. AFIK the manuscripts of the period had clear methods of identifying the actors in an illustration, but anything else was down to the artist. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks all: some interesting further reading in SemanticMantis's links when I have time to do more than skim. It seems possible that the illustrators of the period, quite likely monks, would themselves have used or at least known some sign language, but whether they actually incorporated it into MS illustrations (in a fanzine I'd call them "fillos") seems unresolved. In this particular instance, possibly my familiarity with these particular two subjects (I was schooled in Canterbury) blinded me to any intention of the scribe to be indicating their general relationship. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 14:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wife lawyer representing husband in court case?

Does this happen (in the US)? Are there laws forbidding this, or is it looked down upon? What about divorced couples? I'm writing a (regrettable) short story and was wondering if there was anything I should know about the subject. There are also differing levels of representation, so does that matter? Or would any family member stay clear of such a case? Thanks! 74.69.117.101 (talk) 17:12, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A judge can caution a client not to represent himself or have a certain lawyer, such as his wife represent him. A judge can appoint a defense lawyer or an assistant if he thinks the defendant is choosing inadequate counsel. The judge can remove a lawyer for cause, such as conflict of interest. The judge or the prosecution, wishing to avoid an appeal or mistrial may insist the defense stipulate it realizes the possible unfavorable outcome due to the choice of counsel. Unfortunately our criminal defense lawyer article is a shambles and trial lawyer is not really helpful either. And of course you've got the law of fifty seven states, various territories, and federal law, and criminal versus civil versus procedural law, etc. μηδείς (talk) 17:31, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Certainly not unheard of for people representing their spouses. However, there are probably some pretty serious professional responsibility issues here. Here's a quick link I found looking for the opposite situation—a husband representing his non-attorney wife, dealing with Texas professional responsibility issues (from the early 90s). [3] I'm not sure what "differing levels of representation" means here: can you clarify? As to whether the lawyer would steer clear of the situation... I think it would depend in part on the lawyer's personality. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:33, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In general, lawyers can represent spouses or other relatives, as well as ex-spouses. There are three significant caveats, however, First, a lawyer should not accept representation if she has a conflict of interest. So it would, for example, be improper for a lawyer to represent her husband in their divorce case. Second, a lawyer generally should not appear in court in a matter as to which she may be a witness with respect to a material fact, although there are some exceptions to this rule. Third, a lawyer should not accept representation that exceeds her competency. So, for example, if she has no experience with criminal trial work, it would be improper for her to assume the defense of her husband in a major criminal case. John M Baker (talk) 18:21, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to give John M Baker a barnstar, for contributing his legal expertise to wikipedia, gratis, (he is indeed a qualified lawyer, and has advised me on several occasions here on the refdesk) but as a wiki-novice, I have no idea how to do it. 121.219.43.121 (talk) 13:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]