Humanities desk
< August 23	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 25 >

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.

August 24

Piano Music

I've got some sheet music to a song I want to learn for fun. It's a national anthem (La Marseillaise) and not too hard. THe problem is that the sheet music calls for a vocal part (which I don't have, since I can't sing), and the right hand in the piano part only supports the vocal, without carrying a complete version of the melody, so I decided to play the vocal notes with my right hand. My question is: should I play the left-hand part of the piano part with my left hand, or the right hand melody-supporting part. The LH part is basically a bunch of octaves and chords. 68.76.159.51 (talk) 01:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Almost certainly play the left-hand part of the piano part; it's designed to underpin the full melody, which by your account is conveyed by the vocals. But they're your ears, and there are only a couple of options: try both and report back. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may be best to attempt to re-arrange the right-hand part so that it includes the melody notes and some of the original right-hand part. 124.171.201.251 (talk) 08:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greatest English-speaking orators of the 20th Century?

I need some examples for a public speaking training class I'm giving next week. Anyone care to take a stab at selecting ~5 exemplary orators from the 20th century? I confine it to that period because I'll need to find pictures of these people (a photo of a bust of Cicero would not suffice!) No need to rank them with respect to each other, just 5 legendary speakers. Thank you. 218.25.32.210 (talk) 02:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

William Jennings Bryan; Winston Churchill; Martin Luther King. —Kevin Myers 03:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Franklin Roosevelt's another possibility. Looking at a list of the top 100 American speeches of the 20th century, and dropping people like Nixon (a very poor speaker, in my opinion), you've got Malcolm X, Mario Cuomo, Ronald Reagan, and many others -- some with audio. We have a list of speeches, with many possibilities in the 20th century section. --- OtherDave (talk) 03:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised nobody's said John F. Kennedy. This would be more fun if we had some major restriction. How about nobody that received, or could have received, a military funeral. That eliminates most high-level state offices. Go. Shadowjams (talk) 07:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adolf Hitler probably warrants a mention in terms of effectiveness. Robert Menzies (Australia) if you are interested an English-speaker not from the US or UK. The article orator may also assist (but it's not all that good) 124.171.201.251 (talk) 08:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did Hitler speak English? I'd be surprised, since he was an average person before he got into politics. Nyttend (talk) 11:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought Hitler would eventually come up. I would have no idea because I don't speak German. Of the current runners King, Malcolm X, and Williams Jennings Bryan seem appropriate, but I don't know how Cuomo factors in there. Maybe it's a New York thing. I can think of dozens without my restriction (Patton, Robert Kennedy, Teddy Roosevelt...).

Hitler didn't even bother to speak standard German. He didn't speak English. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, he didn't speak English. Nothing to do with being average though, whatever that means. Jack1297 (talk) 13:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one: Randy Pausch. Shadowjams (talk) 08:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Senator John F. Kennedy's weekly editorials were broadcast in Australia.
Sleigh (talk) 09:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget Jawaharlal Nehru. Marnanel (talk) 11:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edward R. Murrow? Billy Graham? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 12:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Reid? Jack1297 (talk) 12:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Enoch Powell? I don't agree with him politically but his speeches were something to listen too. -- Q Chris (talk) 12:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

George Carlin. That's not a joke, by the way; his routines were meticulously timed and honed down word by word. I'd assert that he spent more time perfecting his delivery than most politicians. Other comedians might qualify, too, but he really stands out in this regard. Matt Deres (talk) 13:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aneurin Bevan overcame a speech impediment and spoke very impressively; James Maxton was also regarded as hugely impressive in his day. Enoch Powell certainly has a claim; you might add Sir Keith Joseph but for his unfortunate tendency to put his foot in his mouth with a duff argument. If you rule out Hitler as a non-English speaker, then you might take Sir Oswald Mosley as a substitute. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh this one is so obviously Yogi Berra! Googlemeister (talk) 16:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Harvey Oswald wins by a long shot followed by JFK and Adrian Kronauer.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shakespear

In Midsummer Nights Dream it says:

I know a bank where the wild thyme blows,
Where oxlips and the nodding violet grows,
Quite over-canopied with luscious woodbine,
With sweet musk-roses and with eglantine:
There sleeps Titania sometime of the night,
Lull'd in these flowers with dances and delight;
And there the snake throws her enamelled skin,
Weed wide enough to wrap a fairy in.

What plant is "luscious woodbine"? What is "eqlantine"?--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 15:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you try looking up Eglantine (which takes you to Eglantine rose, another name for sweetbriar) and Woodbine (which takes you to Woodbine (plant), another name for honeysuckle)? Marnanel (talk) 15:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Ronge

I did my Matrix English exam on a book by Barry Ronge which envolves the entomology of phrases, eg to eat humble pie was from the poor people eating certain part of the deers body, so if a noble was to eat this, they would be increasing their humility. I would like to read this book, but cannot find it on amazon, and cannot remember its name any help please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.89.16.154 (talk) 15:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably Spit'N'Polish. There's several copies available here. --Viennese Waltz ^talk 15:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Spit'n'polish" appears to be the name of a column, not particularly about linguistics, that he writes for The Sunday Times (South Africa), e.g. here; so I assumed the book was merely a collection of these columns. I can't find the contents anywhere, so I don't know for sure. I may be wrong, of course. Marnanel (talk) 15:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure it was a book? There's a column about idioms by him here, and I'd have thought he'd have plugged his book if he had one on the subject. By the way, it's "etymology": entomology is about insects. Marnanel (talk) 15:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but it was definatly not spit and polish, I am certain it was a book dedicated to the entymology (i did pass the exam by the way) of phrases in the english language. Thanks, any help would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.89.16.154 (talk) 19:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no 'n' in etymology. Get that 'n' right out of your head. The study of insects, entomology, has an 'n'. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology is the study of bugs in the language. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

_{I wonder what is the entymology of "pearls before swine" ;-) Richard Avery (talk) 09:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)}[reply]

Thats what I would like to know too. Maybe there are books on the subject, much like a ditionary, but by different authors? This would be just as helpful. Please pretty please. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.89.16.154 (talk) 15:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are things like Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable, but they aren't usually very reliable: you can never be sure if what you're reading is true or folk etymology. Many especially common phrases make their way into the Oxford English Dictionary, and that has a better reputation for reliability. Many public libraries have access to the online version of this, freely available to anyone. 86.161.108.172 (talk) 23:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Compare and contrast the state governments of Virginia (USA) and Victoria (Australia)

Please provide some guidance on how to compare and contrast the state governments of Virginia (USA) and Victoria (Australia). TheFutureAwaits (talk) 15:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at our articles Government of Virginia and Government of Victoria (Australia)? These will provide the facts that could serve as a basis for a comparison. Marco polo (talk) 16:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but they seem wildly different to me. I don't see any obvious similarities except that they share representation. Am I missing something obvious? TheFutureAwaits (talk) 16:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also more generally, U.S. State and States and territories of Australia. 72.2.54.34 (talk) 16:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One is part of a Republic and one part of a Constitutional monarchy. However, they both predate the unification and independance of their respective nations and both have their roots in the Westminster Parliament. However, they have developed along quite different lines. Alansplodge (talk) 16:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To find similarities, it may be helpful to compare them to a governmental system that's different. Government of China and Government of Iran might be good starting points. Even Government of France might help, as there is the common law/civil law distinction. -- 140.142.20.229 (talk) 19:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The big difference is that Virginia has a presidential system (although its chief executive is called a governor) with separation of powers, while Victoria has a Westminster system, which is a type of parliamentary system of government. The other thing you should look at is what powers the state governments have in the constitutions of the U.S. and Australia. They may be different -- for example, in Canada, health care is mainly handled by the provinces, whereas in the U.S., the federal government takes a broader regulatory role. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mwalcoff's first sentence should not be read that Australia has no separation of powers at all - see Separation of powers in Australia. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 05:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1854 Broad Street cholera outbreak

In a recent discussion (Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 August 19#"Evidences for biblical accuracy" questions), the original poster (WordyGirl90) quoted Deuteronomy 23:12–14 as purported evidence for Biblical accuracy. (The pastor of WordyGirl90 purported it as such, and WordyGirl90 was skeptical.) In the ensuing comments, the following points were made.

"... it's not hard to figure out that you'll get sick if you hang around human excrement."—Adam Bishop
"It could just mean that they noticed that washing yourself does wonders to improve health, which is often cited as why ritual purification shows up in many ancient religions the world over."—M@rēino
"People had, after all, been around for many thousands of years at this time and would have been able to learn that those who spent time near excrement or sick people tended to get sick ..."—Marco polo
"It doesn't take a whole lot of medical training to know that it's better to bury excrement in a hole outside of camp than (as I assume is the opposite) leave it standing in a pile in the middle of camp."—Ludwigs2

The cause of the 1854 Broad Street cholera outbreak was discovered to be the dumping of human excrement in a way which polluted the water supply. I have three questions.

Why did the people of London not know that their method of disposing of human waste was unhealthful?
Did anyone of that time and place (perhaps a clergyman of the Church of England, or a Jewish rabbi, or someone else) comment publicly about the relation between the passage in Deuteronomy and the environmental health problems of London?
With cholera outbreaks occurring in even more recent times, how thorough is knowledge globally in 2010 of the connection between ineffectively discarded human excrement and the transmission of cholera?

—Wavelength (talk) 15:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that, in general, people did know that polluting the water supply was unhealthy. There's a discussion of Mediaeval approaches to sanitation in this book, similar to others elsewhere, which stresses that long before 1840, there had been regular moves to regulate such dumping. However, they were rather short on evidence as to what exactly caused diseases. The then-popular miasma theory, while incorrect, did correctly identify foul water as a potential source of disease - but, it held that the problem was the odour, so would have seemed plausible that if water was extracted from such a location but filtered so that it was of reasonable smell and appearance, it would not cause disease. Warofdreams talk 16:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The scientific and medical establishment of the time based their opinions on the classical texts. They were firmly of the opinion that disease was spread by miasma - foul air. Therefore, if water didn't smell bad it wasn't thought to be dangerous (as Warofdreams says). There wasn't a better theory. Paradoxically, it was the need to remove bad air from people's houses that led Edwin Chadwick and others to instigate the modern London sewerage system that saved the capital from further cholera epidemics[1], We're still using that system today. Alansplodge (talk) 16:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised the article doesn't mention Edward Tufte's lengthy analysis of how this problem was solved, in the context of communicating information well with pictures. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the map in Tufte's book and included in the article mentioned by the OP is pretty neat:

To answer the OP's first question, though: I don't think "the people of London" generally were any more inclined than anyone else to drink diarrhea-contaminated water. So knowing if it was "unhealthful" or not, or even whether Deut. prohibited it or not, probably did not contribute much for or against whether they wanted to actually drink it themselves (because there is a biologically instinctual "taste aversion" to fecal matter in humans). In this case (London 1854), it was presumably too dilute in taste to detect (thought to have been caused by a single dirty diaper accidentally disposed of near a drinking well) but not so dilute in cholera bacteria to prevent most people who then drank from that accidentally contaminated well from getting sick.

Regarding the third question, and considering eg. Cholera#Epidemiology, I'd say that better education would probably help but, again, since no one wants to drink fecal-contaminated water if they can help it whether they are "educated" or not, it's really a matter of poverty and infrastructure underdevelopment as to the preventable "cause" of most outbreaks in the world today. Wikiscient (talk) 18:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tearfund refers to Deuteronomy 23:12–14 on page 63 at http://tilz.tearfund.org/webdocs/Tilz/PILLARS/English/PILLARS%20Hygiene_E.pdf.
—Wavelength (talk) 19:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is taken up at some length in Charles E. Rosenberg's The Cholera Years. There are a few things that make cholera tricky. 1. You don't have to actually eat excrement, you just need the water to be contaminated by it. So it's a little more subtle than just encountering excrement. 2. By this point in time, you have an established medical and public health community. The problem is, they don't know much of anything (by modern standards) and have elaborate theories about disease which are just wrong (miasma theory). But being "established" and all, they are not terribly prone to admitting they are completely wrong, even in the face of pretty hard evidence. (It takes years for the Snow theory to actually be put into practice in places like New York or Chicago for this reason.) 3. There were very strong moral and ethical associations with the idea that cholera was caused by miasma specifically and poverty indirectly. It was the classic case of feeling that the victims of an outbreak were really to blame for its propagation, and that what was really needed was social or individual reform. (Compare, for example, AIDS in the 1980s, or the belief that surgery without anesthetic was purifying, even after anesthetic become common, or the idea that vaccination was against God's will, and so on.) So there were active social forces against a simple contamination model and which actively resisted it as something "too simple" that couldn't really solve the "base problem," which was that poor people were awful and needed to learn how to be better people. Rosenberg's book is really quite excellent social history of medicine, and is still a classic, these many years after it was written. Highly recommended. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See ISBN 0226726770 and ISBN 978-0226726779. -- Wavelength (talk) 05:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History of France, 16th century

Why was it that king Henry IV could not be crowned king in Rheims cathedral, as was the tradition, in 1593, instead having to hold his coronation in Chartres cathedral, even though the city of Rheims had surrendered to him as early as 1590, and the entire province of Champagne was under the governorship of his loyal follower Jean d'Aumont?

80.47.116.1 (talk) 17:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Henry IV was crowned at Chartres in 1594 "because Reims was still in the hands of his ardent enemies, adherents to the Catholic League." The Spy Who Came in from the Cold (talk) 17:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(after edit conflict) According to the article on Bishop Nicolas de Thou (info from the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia): "As Reims was still in the power of the Duc de Mayenne, Chartres was chosen for the coronation." ---Sluzzelin talk 17:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then why does the article on Rheims misleadingly suggest that the city had submitted to the king in 1590? 80.47.116.1 (talk) 17:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, maybe it did and then fell again in the hands of the enemy, or maybe the date in the article is wrong. Does someone know any more? --Lgriot (talk) 13:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Children's Science Fiction Collection

I’m looking for a collection of children’s science fiction stories I read in the mid-nineties. I don’t remember the title of the collection, but I loved the stories. 1) a pair of astronauts are broken down on the moon with a newly discovered creature that eats metal like their ship (they eventually figure out it’s active only in the sunlight). 2) an explorer is attacked by a five legged behemoth, which kills his crew, but the guy survives by hiding directly underneath it where the creature can’t get to him 3) a group of teenagers are stuck in a full-immersion game, get past the last level for freedom, but instead are transported back to the first level on a harder difficulty setting 4) a sick astronaut meets a new sentient alien species, and it goes great and peaceful, but when she returns, her cold has killed the entire population and they try to save themselves by stabbing an effigy of her before they die. Looking back now, these are pretty common sci-fi tropes, but I loved them as a kid. Does anybody recognize the collection?160.10.98.106 (talk) 17:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not specifically recognize any of them, but I do recognize the "we're screwed" theme that is popular in Robert Silverberg's vast collection of science fiction novels aimed at young teens. I only read two of his books, but I've read about his book's reputation multiple times. -- kainaw ™ 02:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As an avid consumer of Sci Fi I also cannot recall these exact stories, thought I go back a bit further than the "mid-nineties". They sound a little like the sort of thing Isaac Asimov might have written. Robert Heinlein and James Blish also wrote a lot of 'juvenile' SF, try their short story collections. Sorry I can't help more. 220.101 talk^\Contribs 21:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]