Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2014 January 5

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.

January 5

How the Uraeus (Cobra) on the Nemes (headress) does it associate with the sphinx?

I mean in Egyptian mythology. 174.7.167.7 (talk) 01:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Apparently, it represents the goddess Wadjet, the protector of Egypt. I haven't read that the Great Sphinx had one on its headdress, but Wadjet predates it, so it's possible it was there and wasted away. Just a guess, but the Sphinx could have been a symbolic sort of guard animal. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Or, perhaps more reasonably, the Sphinx was designed by a pharaoh, who decided it should have the image of his own head. Or maybe by a fan of that pharoah, later (something like Mount Rushmore). In either of those cases, the Sphinx's uraeus may not have had any exceptional symbolic value, aside from the normal use on a human headdress (signifying royalty/godliness). InedibleHulk (talk) 03:51, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, the concept of Wadjet later fused with that of the lioness protector Bast to become Wadjet-Bast, something like the hypothetical pharaoh fused with a lion. Maybe the Great Sphinx isn't meant to be a sphinx at all, but the male counterpart (or replacement) to this thing. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what the original question is supposed to mean. As for Inedible Hulk's uncertainty about the uraeus of the forehead of the Great Sphinx of Giza, I'm sure one was originally there. If you look closely at pictures of it, you can see an eroded shape on its forehead that seems certain to be a uraeus. A reconstruction of what the sphinx would have looked like when it was new (here), based on Mark Lehner's study of the sphinx, clearly shows it with a uraeus. The obvious reason that the sphinx is wearing a uraeus is that the uraeus is part of the nemes headcloth worn by whichever pharaoh the sphinx is supposed to depict. Other sphinxes throughout Egyptian history have the same headwear.

If the original poster is asking whether there's a mythological link between the uraeus motif and the sphinx motif, I'd say that they have similar functions but are not exactly the same thing. Sphinxes represent the king or a god in a lion-like form, either guarding a particular place (the sphinxes in front of temples guard temples, and the Great Sphinx of Giza sat next to the causeway that led to the temple at the foot of the Pyramid of Khafre) or trampling the enemies of divine order (as in this image of some furniture from the tomb of Tutankhamun). In ancient Egypt, lions were solar symbols and therefore alluded to the power of the sun god Ra, the original pharaoh and the creator of all order. The uraeus could represent any one of a large complex of violent protective goddesses who destroyed the enemies of order, and of the king, which explains why the uraeus appears on royal crowns. When serving in this protective role, each of the goddesses could be called the Eye of Ra (see that article for more information) because the protective goddess was sort of an extension of Ra's power. (Wadjet and Bastet were two of these goddesses and were sometimes combined with each other, though it would be wrong to say that Wadjet and Bastet were permanently joined. Egyptian gods can form all kinds of combinations as circumstances dictate.) The Eye of Ra goddess often appeared as a uraeus, but it could also be depicted as a lion or a cat. Some sphinxes are female, representing goddesses, and they may well have been thought of as forms of the Eye of Ra. But most sphinxes were male, representing kings or male gods, which makes them rather different from the Eye of Ra. So the uraeus and the sphinx are both divine powers that are linked with the sun god, that protect against or destroy the forces of chaos, and that uphold the authority of the king.

For references to support what I've said about the uraeus and Eye of Ra, see the works cited in the Eye of Ra article. My statements about sphinxes were mostly based on Egyptian Mythology by Geraldine Pinch (2004), pages 206 to 207, and The Complete Temples of Ancient Egypt by Richard H. Wilkinson (2000), page 54–55. If the original poster specifically meant the Great Sphinx of Giza, which is presumed to have been carved during the Old Kingdom, I'd suggest looking at The Cobra Goddess of Ancient Egypt: Predynastic, Early Dynastic, and Old Kingdom Periods by Sally J. Johnson (1990), which I don't have. I don't know how well developed the mythology surrounding the uraeus/Eye of Ra was in the Old Kingdom or what relationship it might have had with the sphinx back then, but Johnson's book may say something about it. A. Parrot (talk) 00:05, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Here's something I've wondered for a while: is it a mistake to take this all so seriously in some kind of erudite mystilogical way? My intuition tells me that the pharaohs and kings and conquistadors of history have a lot more in common with our street gangs and crime cartels, and that one of them wearing a cobra on his head is like one of our gang-bangers wearing a gold machine gun pendant; that it's just a way of saying that look, he's bad-ass and dangerous and he can strike at whoever he wants. Am I wrong? Wnt (talk) 05:55, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, Parrot, I noticed the forehead and thought it seemed more likely than anything that it used to be a cobra. But, despite the larger leaps I made in my guesses, I somehow didn't feel right assuming that. Starting to wonder whether we should even feel safe assuming it represents a sphinx, let alone a pharoah, rather than just a coincidentally similar hybrid. Maybe future historians will also consider the ThunderCats American sphinxes, for lack of a better term. But I'll certainly defer to your more educated guesses.

And no, you're not so wrong, Wnt. Whether it's business, government, crime, religion, hockey or war, the basic idea of a symbol remains the same. Reminds people of the history associated with it to hint at what they can expect from the bearer (or bluffs it, anyway). The meaning of the symbol can vary wildly, of course, through space or time. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the sphinx, Hulk, I'm not sure what you mean. The Greeks may have seen their version of a sphinx as a distinct type of being, but the Egyptian didn't. Sphinxes were just another instance of the Egyptians' convention of mixing and matching human and animal forms to symbolize divine powers (see ancient Egyptian deities#Descriptions and depictions). The Great Sphinx is a more mysterious case, because it's one of the earliest examples of the sphinx form and the archaeological evidence for its origin is rather ambiguous (see Great Sphinx of Giza#Origin and identity). The meaning that the sphinx image was meant to convey in later, better documented times is pretty well understood, though.

To Wnt, I wouldn't say that it's wrong to analyze this stuff in detail. Egyptian religious ideology really is extraordinarily complex. As much as I've studied the subject, I still can't understand half of what a funerary text like the Pyramid Texts is talking about, even in an annotated translation. But the religious beliefs surrounding kingship did have a lot of the brutal impulse that you describe at their core. Defying the king is defying the gods and the order of the cosmos. If you do it, you die. It's just that the Egyptians were expert at elaborating that basic impulse in an "erudite mystilogical way". Replying to Hulk's other point, they also tended to retain the original meanings of symbols, combining them with each other and with new concepts in novel ways. As fascinating (and, to me, inspiring) as Egyptian religion can be, it had a definite dark side. There are some experts (Barry Kemp and Toby Wilkinson come to mind) who take care to remind people of that. A. Parrot (talk) 07:47, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I mean the Great Sphinx (and many other Egyptian statues) don't have wings, like the Greek "live" sphinx. A statue of a horse doesn't have an horn, so we wouldn't call it a unicorn. Just thinking the statue represents an entirely different beast, but the Greeks figured it was close enough when they saw it. One day, perhaps the same iconic blending will happen with Gamera and Yertle the Turtle. I dunno. I'm still basically a noob in the subject. Just wondering aloud, mostly.

And yeah, "fused" may have been a poor word. Didn't mean to imply Wadjet-Bast was permanent. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:30, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

You gotta do what you gotta do

How do you call it when someone begins a judicial case against a politician or official because he did not do the thing that as an office holder he must do? In Argentina, in Spanish, the legal figure is called "incumplimiento de los deberes de funcionario público" ("dereliction of duty of public officials"), but I don't think I should write a literal translation in an article. Cambalachero (talk) 01:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

The general term in English is malpractice, though the term is most commonly associated with medical malpractice (doctors) and legal malpractice (lawyers), I think it may best capture the general concept you are looking for. --Jayron32 02:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

(ec) You gotta write what you gotta write. I'm no lawyer, but "dereliction of duty" sounds fine to me, the states of California (section 22) and Ohio (section F) and Associated Press[1]. Nothing wrong with "of public officials" either. Malpractice doesn't apply to politicians. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Because there are no professional standards they would ever accept as being applicable to them? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Depending on the context of your sentence, "derelicition of a public official's duty" may be slightly better, as it's in the active voice and in the singular. Or "...by a public official". I might be nitpicking a bit. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Under common law legal systems, such a lawsuit was traditionally known as seeking a writ of mandamus... -- AnonMoos (talk) 04:20, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Misfeasance in public office 86.183.79.28 (talk) 08:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

This is a specific tort in English law (which requires proof of malice, rather than mere incompetence). The more general term is Malfeasance in office. Tevildo (talk) 12:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

None of these are equivalent to a civil law system... They don't map. You're probably wanting some statutory equivalent... those don't really exist that much. It's surely not a writ of mandamus, which is a relatively neutral writ that has nothing to do with the elements of any crime.... AnonMoos clearly has no clue what their talking about. Shadowjams (talk) 06:49, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Whatever, dude -- if "someone begins a judicial case against a politician or official because he did not do the thing that as an office holder he must do" under traditional Common Law, then most of the time it takes the form of filing for a Writ of Mandamus. Such an action was at issue in the very famous U.S. supreme court case Marbury v. Madison... -- AnonMoos (talk) 01:00, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Withdrawing from a wedding at the last minute

I recently watched a Chinese TV series which contained a scene where the groom decided to withdraw from the wedding (and thus did not marry the bride) the moment he was supposed to say "I do." In real life, how often does this kind of thing occur - i.e. a bride and/or a groom deciding to walk away the moment they should have said "I do"? 24.47.140.246 (talk) 04:01, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Don't know how common it is in real life, but there's a phrase commonly used to describe it -- being "dumped at the altar" (or "jilted at the altar")... -- AnonMoos (talk) 04:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Or just "left at the altar". It's quite common in fiction if it doesn't have to be exactly at "I do". See TVtropes:RunawayBride. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:31, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

There also used to be a common law concept called Breach of promise. That is pretty much dead by now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Apparently not on your side of the water: Jilted bride wins $43,000 breach of contract award (Dec 6, 2013). Alansplodge (talk) 14:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Breach of promise was repealed in England and Wales in 1970: Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1970. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:56, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

(Irrelevant bugbear-based aside) "I do" seems to be an increasingly common response, but the traditional version, at least in the Church of England wedding ceremony (or Solemnization of Matrimony, as the Book of Common Prayer calls it), in answer to the question (for the groom): "Wilt thou have this woman to thy wedded wife, to live together after God's ordinance in the holy estate of Matrimony? Wilt thou love her, comfort her, honour, and keep her, in sickness and in health; and, forsaking all other, keep thee only unto her, so long as ye both shall live?", is "I will", which seems to me to imply rather more commitment to the future than just "I do". This exchange is mangled in one of the weddings in Four Weddings and a Funeral, where the "wilt thou...?" question is answered by "I do". AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Further complicated by the fact that "I will" means "I want to" (whether it will happen or not), whilst "I shall" means "I am going to" (definite statement of fact). KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 14:48, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Our article on wedding vows doesn't even mention "I do". 75.41.109.190 (talk) 18:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Anyhow, back to the point. I found Jilted Bride: 'In a Moment, It's the Worst Day of Your Life' about a 1997 New York wedding that was delayed by the non-appearance of the groom. Eventually the best man appeared with the news that it was all off. The reception went ahead. Alansplodge (talk) 15:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Based on an understanding of psychology and some anecdotal evidence, I suspect it is much more common for the bride or the groom to fail to appear at a planned wedding than for one of them to show up and then decide not to say "I do" or "I will". I think that, if people have doubts, they are likely to make a final decision whether they are ready when they are getting dressed and ready to travel to the wedding venue. It's much easier to jilt someone by failing to show up than by failing to complete the vows in front of the jilted person and both families. Marco polo (talk) 17:00, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Of course this happens all the time in soap operas and films. I recall hearing a Church of England priest saying in a discussion on the radio that he has never heard of it ever happening in any real wedding in his experience. I can't provide any reference for that, however. Nevertheless, I strongly suspect it happens far more often in Las Vegas than in C of E ceremonies. Paul B (talk) 20:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not so sure of that. As our article mentions, the whole point of a "Las Vegas wedding" is that it can happen so quickly. Leaving someone at the alter involves you second-guessing your commitment, but a Vegas wedding doesn't leave a lot of time for that. If you're okay to marry at 9:00 when he proposed, you'll probably still be okay with it at 9:15 when the ceremony takes place. Now the next morning when it's too late is another matter entirely. Matt Deres (talk) 17:23, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I commend the case of Pitty Pat and Prince Lorenzo to your attention - a lesson for us all. PiCo (talk) 07:11, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Courtesy of me, WHAA* about this: see Primrose Potter @ "Family affairs".

(* this is a subset of WHAAOE). -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

And then they came for me

There is a verse or poetry which starts with First they came for (?) and I did nothing. The end is then they came for me. Would like to know who is the author and complete verse. I think this came out of the 30's or 40's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:4:480:1E6:BC67:75FE:955C:584A (talk) 16:01, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

See First they came .... StuRat (talk) 16:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Who's the girl at the beginning of this USAA commercial?

This reference in Stuart Roosa's Wikipedia article shows a girl who says "Mine was earned orbiting the moon in 1971. Is she Roosa's granddaughter? 75.75.42.89 (talk) 19:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

The girl or person you're referring to features together with other people at 0:14 in the TV ad, in a set-up uncertain as the man holding a tablet cannot be Stuart Roosa, deceased 1994. The Apollo 14 mission for which Roosa was one of the pilots is known and notable for a first from outer space TV color transmission: Hope this helps; ask perhaps USAA.com ? --Askedonty (talk) 22:20, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I guess since it says Roosa sisters, 3rd generation, there's a chance that those are his granddaughters and the man is one of Stuart Roosa's sons. 75.75.42.89 (talk) 22:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)