Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2022 October 1

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.

October 1

What is the technical term for parallel lines drawn along coastlines in old maps?

Parallel lines off coasts

Modern simulation

Old maps sometimes include progressively fainter lines mirroring the coast extending out to sea, as in this map. Is there a term for this in cartography?

I gather that solid ones serving a similar purpose are called tint bands.

Thanks,
cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 00:20, 1 October 2022 (UTC) cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 00:20, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Some info here. They're "contour lines" if the water depth is constant along each line; not sure if there's a specific name when they're graphic artefacts... AnonMoos (talk) 01:58, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps a variant of hachures? Alansplodge (talk) 09:52, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I was on the right track:

"Hachures are parallel lines drawn with a dry point on map engravings which are meant to represent water (coast lines, swamps, etc.). Hachures are also used as hill shading indicating slopes". from A technical dictionary of printmaking, André Béguin . Alansplodge (talk) 09:59, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I have amended our article accordingly. Alansplodge (talk) 10:26, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I would have said "form line" with hachuring always on the fall line, but Eduard Imhof mentions horizontal hachure, I'm not certain i would call it hachure without conveying something to the viewer beyond the form of the coastline.fiveby(zero) 14:06, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Though a closer look has Recently the nomenclature 'form lines' has been suggested for horizontal hachuring. This term is too general and therefore tells us nothing... and the lines certainly visually emphasize the feature.fiveby(zero) 14:25, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Many thanks. Hachure seems the best term. Googling, it seems form lines are just contour lines. Cheers, cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 22:02, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. The lines look too regular to be real contour lines. I think they are more for aesthetics. The web page gives useful info, though. cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 17:22, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

The cusps where the lines from separate island groups meet are also not consistent with real contour lines.  --Lambiam 11:34, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Should be possible to settle the issue by comparison with modern charts. In any event, whatever depths the series of lines might represent they suppose a uniform slope near land and a uniform slope (at a shallower angle) in the open sea, which is unrealistic. 2A00:23D0:482:D001:E578:2121:89F:4D1E (talk) 11:47, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I would tend to include the word 'conventional' somewhere in a description, like conventionally-spaced pylons on 1:50,000 OS maps vs. 1:25,000. MinorProphet (talk) 12:54, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

References

German-Soviet Axis talks

Good Morning everyone, Does anybody have any extra academic sources concerning the German-Soviet Axis talks? Don't care if they are left- or right-wing, just want some sources, preferably in digital form Thank you in advance Ιπποκράτης2020 (talk) 10:45, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

As the 36 sources cited in the article appear not to fulfill your needs, could you give an indication what you are looking for in these extra sources?  --Lambiam 11:28, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Constantine or Federico II Hohenstaufen?

Constantine the Great in Oria (Retouched)

This image says Constantine, but this version [1] disagrees. Which is it? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:27, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

The thing he has in his hand seems to have the text 'LIBERTAS' on it. That does not seem to make any sense at all regarding Constantine, whereas Frederick II was forced to sign the liberty charter Statutum in favorem principum in 1231. The attribution of the statue to Constantine must be a fake. --T*U (talk) 12:43, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

And OTOH, his shield seems to have a cross on it. Could be artistic license either way. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:05, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, why should not Frederick have a cross? After all, he was a crusader. Far more difficult to explain why Constantine should have the word 'LIBERTAS' in his hand. Also, Constantine's sign has not been described as a simple cross sign, but either as a staurogram or as a chi-rho. Finally, what would be the purpose of a statue of Constantine in Oria? While Frederick actually was reigning the area. --T*U (talk) 13:40, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Point. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:23, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

The only printed text I could find is The Companion Guide to Southern Italy (1969) page 307:

...we come to the Piazza Cattedrale, with a modern statue of Constantine (Mario Sabatelli, 1924) and the baroque cathedral, rebuilt in 1750...

I also found this webpage that seems to be from the Italian ministry of culture, which mentions:

la colossale statua dell'Imperatore Costantino (Oria, 1924)

Alansplodge (talk) 19:22, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

A couple more...

L’imperatore Costantino fotografata da @alessioproto - la colossale statua dell’imperatore Costantino (Oria, 1924) realizzata da Mario Sabatelli. Percorrendo le vie strette si giunge in piazza Cattedrale, dove una terrazza è sorvegliata dalla statua in bronzo dell’imperatore Costantino. from Rai - Radiotelevisione Italiana Spa. Alansplodge (talk) 19:27, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Also Puglia by Touring club italiano (1978) p. 343 which says:

...un esteso panorama , sorgono la statua di Costantino , di Mario Sabatelli ( 1924 ) , e la Cattedrale , interamente ricostruita nel 1750 dopo il terremoto...

That's your lot, make of it what you will. Alansplodge (talk) 19:34, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A photograph of the image on the web page Visita guidata a Oria has the url https://www.salentoguideturistiche.it/img/oria/oria-federico.jpg The page contains several mentions of Federico II and none of Costantino I. This photo also identifies the statue as Frederick II's. The changes to Constantine are mistaken; note that also the Common cats now have Category:Constantine's Statue, Oria, also for File:Statua federico II a Oria.JPG. The older categories should be restored.  --Lambiam 19:42, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

A photo of the statue was the second of a selection by the Museo Nazionale of four photographs of Italian works of art.^[2] The text identifies it as portraying the colossal statue of Emperor Constantine (Oria, 1924) realized by Mario Sabatelli.  --Lambiam 20:11, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Colossal?[3] Constantine I must have been very short if that statue is twice life size. fiveby(zero) 22:23, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

There's one such colossal statue of Constantine that anything smaller than 8 metres can't be called colossal. PiusImpavidus (talk) 09:34, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for all the response! Constantine seems to be the answer. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:57, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Judging from his face, it's more similar to that of Frederik II than that of Constantinus, but depictions of either of them tend to be somewhat idealised. His gear (apart from the shield) is clearly Roman. May I suggest that this piece of art may try to unite both Roman emperors, to put Frederik II in the tradition of Constantinus? Both are known for granting certain liberties (one to the Christians, the other to the German princes) and as defenders of Christianity. So that this is a statue of both at the same time. PiusImpavidus (talk) 09:34, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I wonder if Snr. Sabatelli has inscribed the name of the subject on the pedestal? I couldn't find an image of the whole thing. Alansplodge (talk) 09:52, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like something an artist might do. Some depictions of Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor do seem to have a beard, like the statue. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:27, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Aha! Itália meridionale: v. Abruzzo, Molise e Púglia, (1926) Page 678 mentions:

...mon. à Costantino, di Mario Sabatelli da Bari, 1924, deliberato nel 1913 in occasione del xvi centenario dell'editto di Milano

Which I think means "Mon. to Constantine, by Mario Sabatelli of Bari, 1924, deliberated (commissioned?) in 1913 on the occasion of the sixteenth centenary of the Edict of Milan".

As every schoolboy knows, the Edict of Milan in AD 313 granted freedom of worship to Christians throughout the Roman Empire, so this must be the document marked "LIBERTAS".

Final score: Constantine, 1 - Frederick II, NIL. Alansplodge (talk) 14:05, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Frederick II's birth name was Constantine. I do not see this mentioned here and it might not be relevant but I do find it interesting. Surtsicna (talk) 14:52, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Live fire exercise that is attendable by civilians

Hi, there.

The East Fuji Maneuver Area hosts annual live fire exercises that is attendable by civilians. There are many youtube videos of this event, this is an example of it[4]. In this video, you can clearly see the civilian attendees sitting less than 100 meters away from the firing infantry and armor vehicles.

Other than Japan, are there any other country that hosts similar live fire exercises that are attendable by civilians? Helian James (talk) 20:50, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Renoir painting

I am trying to track down every painting that was ever made (or allegedly made) of Renoir's model Lise Tréhot. As of 2022, the only painting I have failed to track down in this regard is a work titled Woman looking at a bird (Lise: La Fille a l'Oaseau). Art historian Douglas Cooper last made note of it in 1959, describing it as 8I by 65 cm in size and in possession by the Barnes Foundation, Philadelphia. This is odd to me, as I own the definitive catalog for the Barnes, and there's no mention of it. Given that the book is just under 400 pages, it's possible that I missed something, but I don't think I did. From what I can tell, a Russian editor on a website called "Arthive" uploaded a page about the work.[5] According to that site, the painting is now located at the Nizhny Novgorod State Art Museum, not at the Barnes Foundation. Searching for "Ренуар" at artmuseumnn.ru produces a few results, including "Женщина с птичкой" (Woman with a Bird), which leads to this page of results. However, I'm having trouble finding the entry due to browser issues. If anyone is able to read that link and tell me if there is content about the painting, that would be wonderful. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 23:37, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

You were unable to view the page and video? Here is a YouTube link. fiveby(zero) 23:51, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 00:00, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for answering the first question. However, I am unable to sleep not knowing how the painting was said to be in the Barnes private collection in 1959 (several years before the institution went public in 1961), and then suddenly appears in a state museum in Russia in the 2000s. Again, Natalia Kandaurova of Arthive says that it came to the USSR in 1945 and was possibly captured by the Red Army from Nazis who had looted Hungarian art (such as Baron Herzog). But this doesn’t make any sense when Cooper says Barnes had it in 1959. I’m obviously missing an important aspect of this problem. Can anyone help? I’m trying to think of alternate explanations. For example, perhaps Barnes was making a claim on stolen artwork, and by having Cooper publish this credit, it was establishing ownership even though the work was in Russia? Viriditas (talk) 03:09, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

According to the Barnes Foundation (Barnes-Foundation-Martha-Jun-2012-Hardcover), Barnes' collecting Renoirs extends from 1912 to 1942 ([6]). Could Cooper's question possiblys come from a confusion with an ambiguous Child with a Bird (Mademoiselle Fleury in Algerian Costume) 1882 Oil on canvas, 126.4 x 78.1 cm, turned "Girl with falcon" perhaps only in the 1950's ([7]) ? --Askedonty (talk) 10:05, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the question. I suppose it’s certainly possible, but there are several different paintings with birds, and Cooper’s focus is solely on paintings featuring Lise. He also includes a plate of the correct image, so there’s that. But your question is a good one, as something isn’t quite right. One thing I forgot to mention in this discussion was that the painting is a fragment of a larger work known as Landscape with Two People (Paysage avec deux personnages). The painting in the Russian museum is the bottom left portion. The top right is either lost or destroyed. Nobody seems to know why the two were separated or what became of the other fragment! Curiouser and curiouser. Another angle of investigation that I have not yet pursued is to review the Holocaust suits filed in court which supposedly list the works of art that were stolen per Baron Herzog. In other words, I have not yet confirmed that the Renoir in custody of the Russian museum appears on that list. Which again, leads me to wonder why Barnes would claim it in 1959? Seems like a genuine art mystery. Viriditas (talk) 10:20, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

The page Женщина с птичкой on the website of the Nizhny Novgorod State Art Museum (artmuseumnn.ru) calls it an early work of Renoir, implying that the painting harbours a mystery, an intriguing secret. There is no image or further link, and no express indication it is part of the collection (although one would assume so). BTW, in French the title is La Fille a l'Oiseau.  --Lambiam 11:02, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

This is a long shot, but you might try WP:RX for page# 34 of OCLC 564093838. This is a 1967 volume of Museum Folkwang's bulletin. I can't view any text but there is a search hit for "La Fille a l'Oiseau" Renoir Barnes "l'ombrelle" Lise. 3 usages of "La Fille a l'Oiseau" and 2 of "Barnes". fiveby(zero) 12:47, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Err...how did we not find "10. Renoir: was there a bird?" fiveby(zero) 13:25, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

«Female portrait» (in the Catalogue — «Femme à l’oiseau») by Renoir came from Baron Andre Herzog de Czet’s collection. (p. 36) and listing (p. 128) Catalogue of Art Objects from Hungarian Private Collections. fiveby(zero) 13:55, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Barnes titles "Woman with Bird" and has it in the Baron Herzog collection in 1935. Barnes, Albert C.; De Mazia, Violette (1935). The Art of Renoir. The Barnes Foundation. p. 442. fiveby(zero) 14:32, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

...András Herzog also gave impressionist works on loan abroad from his collection in the period directly before the outbreak of the war. Between 2 July and 25 September 1938 an exhibition was organised in Amsterdam’s Stedelijk Museum titled Honderd Jaar Fransch Kunst (One Hundred Years of French Art) on the occasion of the queen’s jubilee. András Herzog lent five paintings for this exhibition: ...Auguste Renoir’s Woman with Bird... also photograph showing the painting in the "Herzog Palace" in Radvanyi, Orsolya (2016). "Attempts to Rescue Artworks in the Shadow of World War II: Notes on the Background of the Herzog Collection". Bulletin du Musée Hongrois des Beaux-Arts: 202–3. But no mention of loaning to Barnes for an exhibition in Philadelphia. fiveby(zero) 15:09, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Couldn't Cooper just be attributing the photograph or the last known location of a missing painting in 1959? fiveby(zero) 15:29, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Cooper consistently uses the "collection name, location" convention in the citations. In this instance, on p. 169: Plate 9. Lise: La Fille a l'Oaseau, by Pierre Auguste Renoir. Signed and dated I866. Canvas, 8I by 65 cm. (Barnes Foundation, Philadelphia.) Is he attributing the photo and not the work, as you say? I think you might be right. It's the only conclusion that makes sense, and if I think hard enough, I seem to recall seeing this kind of thing before, maybe a decade ago. You've solved the problem to my satisfaction. The new source you just posted fills in the historical gaps as to how the painting went from the Herzog palace in Pest, Hungary, to the Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam, in 1938. Unfortunately, the Hungarian Ministry of Religious Affairs and Public Education demanded the artworks be returned on June 17, 1939. At this point the sources become murky: in 1944, it is thought the painting made its way to either Germany or Austria, however, the commartrecovery.org report you posted says there is a less credible, but alternate theory that the painting was taken directly from Hungary by the Red Army. In either case, at some point in 1945, the Red Army found the painting (somewhere near Berlin?) and took it back to Moscow. In February 1946, the painting was delivered from storage to the Gorky Art Museum, where it remained until 1957, when it was moved to the Grabar Institute for restoration. It was then moved to the Nizhny Novgorod State Art Museum for exhibition in 1996. That's all I've got so far. Thanks for your efforts. Viriditas (talk) 23:01, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

You are very welcome, fun question. fiveby(zero) 19:55, 3 October 2022 (UTC)