Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2015 September 4

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.

September 4

Odysseus and Achilles' armor

In the Odyssey, Homer tells a bit about Odysseus's victory over Ajax in the competition for Achilles' armor. However, in the period of his 10 year journey home, no mention, as far as I recall, is made of him ever possessing the armor, wearing it, or what became of it. If he did have the armor at the beginning of his journey home, he must have some point, probably early on, lost it. (This must be true, for he certainly wouldn't have had it after his raft sinks and he swims to shore and then encounters Nausicaa, when he must use a tree branch for modesty. My question is, are there ancient Greek writers who used this unexplained part of Homer's story as a springboard for creating a new adventure, in which Odysseus perhaps fights a battle while wearing the armor and then later perhaps it falls off the ship or just is stolen, for example? Thanks, Rich2601:681:4902:31B8:95CC:E49C:E8F:3502 (talk) 04:21, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Read about Achilles' heel. --Aspro (talk) 12:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

No, Achilles' heel is (as that article says) a later addition and not something present in Homer. Read Achilles#Fate_of_Achilles.27_armor instead, where you'll see that Odysseus gave it to Neoptolemus, Achilles' son. --Aquillion (talk) 12:28, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

This happens in the Little Iliad, one of the fragmentary poems of the Epic Cycle - see the first fragment here. In Sophocles' play Philoctetes the title character tries to drive a wedge between Neoptolemus and Odysseus over Achilles' armour, which is in Odysseus' possession. --Nicknack009 (talk) 14:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I figure at some point Eudoros must have been in charge of it, so that Achilles could utter his not so famous line, "Eudora, bring me my mail!" Wnt (talk) 21:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

The love that dare not speak its name

I know that the above is an old euphemism for homosexuality that comes from the poem "Two Loves" by Lord Alfred Douglas, published in 1894 (WP has articles on just about everything)... several years ago, I came across a somewhat snarky comment about Gay rights activism that went something along the lines of "'The love that dare not speak its name' now won't shut up!"... I am trying to discover who originally made that snarky comment. Blueboar (talk) 13:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Izquotes.com attributes this to Robertson Davies but doesn't give a source. The Cornish Trilogy from 1992 is a possibility -- at the very least it contains something related. Looie496 (talk) 14:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

The above Wikilink Two Loves is to a 1961 film apparently unrelated to the 1894 poem. Edison (talk) 14:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Nice catch Edison. Here "Two Loves" is a link to the Wikisource page for the poem. MarnetteD|Talk 14:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

A quotation citation from the great unwashed Web is like a nasty disease: don't know where it came from, spreads like wildfire, can't seem to get rid of it.

Reference Desk regulars can at least attempt to cite reliable secondary sources for quotation quests. Or not. ;)

"A great many complimentary things have been said about the faculty of memory, and if you look in a good quotation book you will find them neatly arranged."

-- Robertson Davies, from The Enthusiasms of Robertson Davies (1990), as cited in The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations, 5th. ed., 2001, p. 292)

Alas, no reputable quotation book (Oxford 3rd, 5th eds.; Bartlett's 17th ed.; Yale; Oxford Modern; Oxford 20th Century) at my disposal attributed the quotation in question to Robertson Davies, or anyone else. A lot of amusing "shut up" occurrences in The Cornish Trilogy but nothing close to "love that dare not". (Astute guess: what related quote did you have in mind, Looie496?)

Back to the Web, reliable sources edition:

• 1997 book edited by John Corvino - see second sentence of H-Net Review for quote of editor's introduction. Reviewer thought it a canny observation, apparently judging it to be original. Not likely:
• 1994 Harvard Review article by Marcia Diehl - first paragraph, using unattributed quotation marks. Further back:
• September 30, 1992 column by Jeffrey Hart - op-ed title likely editor supplied, but also first sentence - no quotation marks used nor any source cited. Original coinage, or already common currency?
• Any earlier? Lexis-Nexis anyone? -- Paulscrawl (talk) 06:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Alfred Kazin in The Writer as Sexual Show-off: Or, Making Press Agents Un-necessary, 1975. The original form was "The love that dare not speak its name" (in the nineteenth century) cannot, in the twentieth, shut up. This is Kazin's original article. Note that when Kazin said it, it wasn't intended as an attack on gay activism, but on a group of writers whom he felt were claiming to be gay as a publicity stunt. ‑ iridescent 15:57, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Old Mother Hubbard

I have a very ragged and torn booklet from 1894 called Old Mother Hubbard of 1793...Old Mother Hubbard of Today Dean & Son (1893)which makes direct reference, with illustrations, to an earlier version of Old Mother Hubbard dated 1793. This predates the version in the print and text on the Wikipedia entry. Would someone like to add the information or let me know how best to edit the article already written. 146.199.172.189 (talk) 14:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I have now found reference to Children's Books of Yesterday, Cambridge University Press, edited by Percy H Muir, a catalogue of an Exhibition in 1946 which lists my booklet at entry 285 as "A gross piece of falsification. The dates in the facsimile of the original edition have been altered to make it appear that this edition is the centenary one. No. 281 clearly shows that the rhyme was not written until 1804." Is this true I wonder.146.199.172.189 (talk) 18:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Which Wikipedia article are you referring to? This one (Old Mother Hubbard)? Questions about that specific article are best to be posted on the Talk Page for that article, as opposed to this Reference Desk Help Page. The Talk Page for that article is located here: Talk:Old Mother Hubbard. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

More general than AU?

I am a professed legion of American's United's Church & State magazine. I wonder if there are any similar periodicals that cover both social and fiscal/other issues? Theskinnytypist (talk) 17:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

WorldCat indexes not only books but also periodicals by subject matter. Their listing for Church and State is here. Click "View all subjects" (or page down) to see how librarians catalog that magazine. Click the most relevant - I think it su:Church and state - United States - Periodicals. A list of related publications follows. Narrow down by format (e.g., "Journal, magazine") with click in left-hand faceted filter list. 461 to wade through - more check-box filters below. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 06:24, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Another cool feature of WorldCat is "Find a copy in the library" - enter your Zip code and see where you can get a hands-on look at the competition. Or browse! I'd check both academic research libraries (esp. ones offering graduate degrees in PPE [philosophy, politics, economics] &/or law, as well as both Catholic and Protestant seminary libraries to get the broadest range. While relatively few in number and perhaps far away, Jewish seminary libraries are often especially strong in church-state studies. The various libraries' reference librarians can save you a lot of time figuring out what is browsable in the stacks and what is in proprietary databases - accessible on site even by the general public. (At least I've never been refused access when I've done my homework and asked nicely.) -- Paulscrawl (talk) 07:23, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Unusual boats

Another one that's gone a week without response at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Transport/Maritime transport task force, so I'm bringing it here.

Can anyone tell me anything about these somewhat unusual-looking boats? Any particular name for them? - Jmabel | Talk 18:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

They're the rigid craft special forces use. There's a video of them in action here. ‑ iridescent 18:50, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

According to people selling used ones, they were made by VT Halter Marine, Inc., and were designated "MK MOD 2 High Speed Assault Craft". Deor (talk) 22:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! - Jmabel | Talk 16:02, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Why so many refugees want to come to Germany?

What's the point of coming as a refugee to a place where there are thousands attacks on refugees? And that going thru Ungary where there are many attacks? Wouldn't refugees be better off in Saudi Arabia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mü Mandy (talk • contribs) 19:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Because of the Schengen Agreement and principle of free movement of labour within the EU, it doesn't matter to a migrant/ illegal immigrant which EU country they apply for immigration status in; once they have one state's visa, they are free to move anywhere else within the EU.

Given that recent television footage of the Syrian immigrants in front of the Budapest station showed them shouting in English that they wanted to go to Germany, together with various handwritten signs in English, the chances are, I should think, that most will move on from Germany and the travail of the horrific German irregular verbs as soon as they are able to. Similarly, there is much political discussion at the moment in Poland about admitting Syrian migrants - they only want the Christian ones - but, with all due respect to the state of Poland, the grass is certainly greener elsewhere, and Polish is neither an easy language to learn nor an international language (to say nothing of the winters). Plenty of opportunity for continental politicians to grandstand their bleeding hearts whilst dumping the problem elsewhere!

Most Gulf states, and Israel of course, refuse these immigrants on the grounds of security concerns. Listeners to the Today Programme this morning were treated to the Chief Rabbi insisting that Britain should admit more refugees.

We live in an odd world; given the steady stream of European radicalised Muslim youth who head off ('scuse the pun) to Syria, treating it as a Jihad gap year, the exhausted and bewildered Syrian refugee might well come to think that he would have been safer staying put. 86.169.105.74 (talk) 21:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

The reference to Schengen is completely confused. Hungary is within the Schengen area. The migrants want to travel within the Schengen area to Germany because Germany wants to a compassionate welcome to asylum seekers (as part of its ongoing rehabilation after starting two World Wars) and because it is a rich country that can afford to do so. 137.205.1.184 (talk) 22:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I think the IP was suggesting the migrants will travel on from Germany to other countries once they were recognised as refugees in Germany. However I agree the reference is confused. The IP seems to be suggesting they will move on to a place that's largely English speaking but even if this is true, the only places his really applies to is the UK and to most extents to Ireland, neither of which are part of the Schengen area. So while Freedom of movement for workers in the European Union may still allow the migrants to move there, the Schengen area isn't a significant part of that. There are of course places in various other EU states where someone could survive without much of the native language, but I'm fairly sure this applies to Germany too. So ultimately the relevance of the Schengen area to the OPs point seems questionable. Nil Einne (talk) 06:25, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I suspect most people who come from most parts of Syria would suggest the situation would need to be far worse than they are in even the worst member of the EU for it to be safer staying put. Of course racicalised foreign youth in Syria are one of the things making it unsafe in Syria. Nil Einne (talk) 16:50, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

The reason (one among many) is there were some ambiguous statements, for example the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees said something to the effect that Germany would render the Dublin accord inoperative for Syrians, in other words that the refugees would not be sent back to the transit countries via which they came to Germany, despite those being technically safe Asmrulz (talk) 23:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Some (cynical) people say this was actually deliberate, because in reality, not only would Germany/Western Europe - or the people who rule it - not mind, but in fact they couldn't get enough refugees fast enough, as part of some sinister agenda Asmrulz (talk) 00:14, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

If I were a refugee seeking a better life, my first thought would certainly be Saudi Arabia! Haha, no. In any case, even if they wanted to go there, the Saudis aren't letting any of them in. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:02, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Because in Germany, no one is trying to kill them with bombs and guns. I would have thought that was pretty obvious. --Jayron32 19:47, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

While this is sadly true and very relevant, the OP compared Germany with Saudi Arabia, not Syria. 137.205.1.184 (talk) 22:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

(I am the same who posted the question, just lost the old acount and have a new one)

Jayron, your answer is out of place. I do not dispute that they have good reason to leave Syria, but why wouldn't they choose the most safe country? Or choose a combination of rich and safe?

I didn't know they were not accepted in Saudi Arabia. But being muslims and all, they could choose another muslim country, and not go there were muslims are being attacked (although not with bombs and guns). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Münich Mandy (talk • contribs) 22:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

What Muslim country are you referring to which would welcome large numbers of Syrian refugees? And a country which has even close to the level of prosperity and economic development of Germany (or Austria) to boot? And how are they even going to get there?

Also you'll encounter xenophobia pretty much throughout the world, not to mention the whole Sunni-Shia (and other factional) divide, when you're being attacked, it's not going to be much comfort if they're another Muslim attacking you for being an unwanted Syrian or an evil Sunni/Shia edit: or whatever. In fact, that's similar to what they're running away from.

By the same token, security situations vary between countries. Whatever risk there may be from the short time spent in Hungary, Germany may be relatively safe (even with some small risk of xenophobic or Islamiphobic attacks) compared to other countries which besides the earlier risks, have ordinary crime. Again, it's cold comfort to the person when they're injured or killed by an ordinary criminal who didn't really about their religion or country of origin.

In fact the whole Hungary thing is stupid, while I'm not an expert on the security situation in Hungary, it seems fairly unlikely the risks are so high that they are somehow significantly more than the risks already faced travelling from Greece or wherever they first ended up in Europe through Macedonia and Serbia (or however they ended up in Hungary), let alone the risks of the boats or whatever they used to get to Europe plus the risks of getting from Syria to Turkey or wherever they took the boats from.

BTW, as remarked in most sources discussing the crisis, and also in our article Refugees of the Syrian Civil War, there are already millions of Syrian refugees in places like Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan, although often they're stuck in camps with little ability to work and would prefer to move on. While it's undoutedly true many countries of the region aren't doing enough, it's also not that hard to see that trying to handle 1+ million refugees in Lebanon a country with a population of about 4.5 million and plenty of serious problems of its own is difficult.

Nil Einne (talk) 06:03, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

The religious situation in Syria is, um, complex and also complicated by ethnic differences. Many of the refugees are Kurds, which are often unwelcome in any other country regardless of their specific religious beliefs; the Kurds, while Sunni, are not Arabs, and would not "fit in", culturally or ethnically, in many neighboring countries. The Kurds are under attack from three fronts, ISIL, the Syrian government, and Turkey, who is waging their own shadow war against the PKK under the guise of fighting ISIL. Additionally, there are Syrian refugees from all sides in the war, regardless of religious background: Alawites (Shia) are the religious group of the ruling Al-Assad regime, but are unwelcome in ISIL-controlled (Sunni) areas. The reverse is true in Assad-regime areas. It's a giant, complicated mess, and many of the refugees are fleeing, not as a single oppressed group, but as a mix of all of these groups, and more, including Chirstians and Druze and any of a number of other religious and ethnic groups. And it's not just Syrians, it's Libyans and Iraqis and others from various Middle Eastern and North African countries which are highly unstable. Saudia Arabia isn't particularly interested in dealing with any of these people. Germany has openly said they will accept them, and other countries in Europe are coming around and offering to accept some as well. That's why they're going that way... --Jayron32 06:15, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

• To add a couple of points that haven't yet been mentioned, there are several factors but of note are: a) Turkey's recent election saw the most refugee-friendly party take a knock, so some of the 2 million in Turkey are looking for a way out – Germany has strong ties with the country (see Germany–Turkey relations) and there's a large Turkish community in the country which makes it easier for people from that region of Asia to get settled there (there are mosques, Middle Eastern supermarkets, and community centers). b) The route that goes Turkey>Greece>Balkans (usually Serbia and/or Croatia)>Hungary>Austria/Germany has recently become much better known and is (relatively) safe since it goes largely by land, and of the countries on that route, Germany and Austria are the most well off. c) Hungary has a right-wing semi-dictatorial leader (Viktor Orbán) who wants an isolationist Hungary and is threatened by a strong far-right in the form of Jobbik. His goals are to embarrass Europe, weaken the big EU powers, and show that he is tough on "non-Christians", so what better way to do that than to make Hungary's refugee processing as dysfunctional as possible? It's not that refugees don't want to live there, it's that they can't. Smurrayinchester 08:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

One more thing which I belatedly realise wasn't well discussed above is that it's more than just the Dublin accord. Germany has basically said for now they're willing to ignore the Dublin accord which means they will accept them in Germany rather than sending them back to Greece or Hungary or wherever they initially entered the EU, but they've also said (along with Sweden [1]), that they would basically consider all Syrians as genuine refugees [2]). These two situations combined have meant that plenty of people who aren't Syrian want to be or at least would prefer it isn't known who they are, compared to Syrians who are quite happy for the German government to know they're Syrian once they reach Syria [3].

I'm fairly sure Hungary (and Greece) hasn't said anything similar, and the success rate of asylum applications there is very low [4]. Germany is more middle of the road, interestingly the highest success was in Bulgaria. That source also shows most EU countries except for Greece, Hungary and Italy approved most Syrian applications in 2014. Of course the statistics will depend on the type of people applying which is likely to vary from country to country. Bulgaria for example seems to reject Afghans (who are conversely well accepted in Italy) so I presume this means they had a lot of Syrians and not so many Afghans. (I wonder what the Bangladeshis mentioned in the earlier sources are going to say they are.

Without looking at statistics, it would seem to me claiming they were Rohingyas would be a better bet than claiming to be Syrians given the likely difficulty convincing anyone you were Syrian. Particularly since it wouldn't be surprising if you have no documents, or if Myanmar refuse to acknowledge you were from Myanmar.)

Nil Einne (talk) 08:28, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

White-painted tree-trunks

Watching a Rick Stein programme, he is eating a goat in the Mani. The tree-trunks in the village square are all painted white up just over head height. Why do they paint the trees? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DuncanHill (talk • contribs) 31:31, 4th September 2015

White paint can be recommended to prevent sun damage [5], and they have plenty of that in Greece. I doubt it freezes much there but another reason people paint trees white is to help prevent frost damage [6]. Also Some grafting techniques also use paint as a sealant. SemanticMantis (talk) 22:16, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I have seen it before, and I assumed it was for making the trees more visible for traffic of all types. If the trees are not resilient against sun damage, then I wonder whether they got the wrong trees for their region. --YX-1000A (talk) 01:06, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You're probably right Mr Mantis, but during World War II, many roadside trees in London had a broad white stripe painted on them to stop cars running into them during the blackout. Some kept their paint into the 1970s; this image shows narrow stripes but I recall trees with one broad band painted white to about 5 feet high. Perhaps they turn the street lamps off early there? Alansplodge (talk) 01:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

There are other possibilities still:

"For trees, it can be several things:
- insect repellent (one white, sticky product prevents ants and other crawling critters away from fruits; a separate  white product reduces the opportunity for borers to get into the tree)
- anti-windburn (this would appear only on smaller trees with undeveloped bark in areas where there are frequently high (or steady) winds during the cold months)" from http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/archive/index.php/t-118162.html

--YX-1000A (talk) 01:06, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

This is obviously irrelevant to the query, but might be interesting. See this old photo showing a streetcar stop painted directly on a utility pole. (If there hadn't been a pole in the right place, a freestanding sign would have been used.) Well, in the 1960s I lived in Guelph, Ontario, and that city then used a similar style of sign for its bus stops—and I remember that one of them, instead of a pole, was painted directly on a tree! --65.94.50.17 (talk) 07:44, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I just found: "The fact that the trunks of the trees are often painted white (limewash) in Crete and Greece is primarily to fight the ants. And besides it looks nice, too!" [7] Alansplodge (talk) 01:21, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's the reason why trees are painted that way in some Caribbean islands too, and in some places in Africa. Akseli9 (talk) 17:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Quora discussion here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:52, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks everyone. DuncanHill (talk) 08:39, 7 September 2015 (UTC)