Humanities desk
< November 8	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 10 >

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.

November 9[edit]

Skinner[edit]

2 questions about BF Skinner: 1) Is the Professor Burris in Walden II the version of the author himself in a story (I forgot what that's called)? 2) WHo is the second most famous writer or philosopher or statesman, etc (pretty much any non-entertainer) who is also known by the surname skinner? (your Skinner article is not very helpful in that repsect, it is only a list Thanks. 24.92.78.167 (talk) 03:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding #2, how could we possibly rank all the Skinners listed by popularity? There is no objective scale for "most famous". Dismas|^(talk) 05:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously you want Seymour Skinner, the educationist. Rmhermen (talk) 15:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any ranking by order of "most famous" is bound to be subjective, but if you wanted a sheen of fake objectivity, you could perform a Google search on each name and see how many hits you get. This is certainly not a good indication of how famous each person is in any particular corner of the world, or even how many people in the world know of each person; but it does shed light on how many times they've been mentioned on the Web, which is a sort of fame, I guess. Personally, and this is OR, but I have to second the nomination of Seymore Skinner as the second most famous, at least to me. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oldowan tools experiment[edit]

The author of this book review states, in passing, "Experiments have shown that Oldowan tools can be made using just the part of the brain that was available back in Homo habilis times." Is that true? What was the nature of these experiments? I can't find anything at the Oldowan article. LANTZY ^TALK 06:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well, the first google result for oldowan brain was a UCL text that I couldn't access, but which told me the answer is using PET scans. Then I tried google books, which has a lot of results for oldowan positron emission topography, and the first result there told me one Dietrich Stout is responsible for the experiments. Here's an article about it from his university's site, [1] which links to this [2] PLoS ONE paper. It was only at this point that I realized I'd already read about it here [3]. 81.131.31.223 (talk) 19:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Word for three joint rulers[edit]

Not sure if this should be posted here or at the language desk but I am looking for a word that describes the rule of three persons over a state. I believe it begins with 'Tri-' and I believe the word also contains a 'V' but I can't for the life of me think of the name of the word. I'd be very greatful for any help, my dictionary hasn't yielded any information so far. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.60.224.196 (talk) 08:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Triumvirate is what you seek. DuncanHill (talk) 08:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.60.224.196 (talk) 08:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Next time try reading the dictionary entries in reverse order, starting with triz-, then triy-, etc., and you'll find it sooner. --Anonymous, 09:40 UTC, November 9, 2010.

I don't see why reading it from "triz-" to "tria-" would be any faster in a general sense than reading it "tria-" to "triz-", if you don't know any more of the word than the opening "tri-". GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 09:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"It's a joke, son." --Anon, 23:16 UTC, November 9, 2010.

Troika is another name for 3 joint rulers if the rulers in question desire a Russian flavor. Googlemeister (talk) 14:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nabokov on Dostoyevsky[edit]

As I understand it, Nabokov prized the writings of Tolstoy very highly, but considered that Dostoyevsky was wholly overrated. The idolisation of Tolstoy is apparent from many of his writings, but I can't seem to find anything that explains why he disliked Dostoyevsky. Can anyone help? 84.93.169.198 (talk) 12:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lecture on Dostoyevsky in Nabokov's Lectures on Russian Literature. To name all the things Nabokov disliked about Dostoyevsky would be difficult; he thought the style was banal, the characters were merely puppets or illustrations of ideas, the religious mysticism in D.'s work was vulgar and nauseating, D. lacked sense of humour, etc., etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.166.72.254 (talk) 14:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A quote: "I must have been twelve when I read Crime and Punishment for the first time and thought it a powerful and exciting book. I read it again at nineteen, during the awful years of civil war in Russia, and thought it long-winded, terribly sentimental, and badly written. I read it at twenty-eight when discussing Dostoevsky in one of my own books. I read the thing again when preparing to speak about him in American Universities. And only quite recently did I realize what is so wrong about the book. The flaw, the crack in it, which in my opinion causes the whole edifice to crumble ethically and aesthetically may be found in part ten, chapter 4. It is in the beginning of the redemption scene when Raskolnikov, the killer, discovers through the girl Sonya the New Testament. She has been reading to him about Jesus and the raising of Lazarus. So far so good. But then comes this singular sentence that for sheer stupidity has hardly the equal in world-famous literature: "the candle was flickering out, dimly lighting up in the poverty-stricken room the murderer and the harlot who had been reading together the eternal book." "The muderer and the harlot" and "the eternal book" --what a triangle. This is a crucial phrase, of a typical Dostoevskian rhetorical twist. Now what is so dreadfully wrong about it? Why is it so crude and inartistic? I suggest that neither a true artist nor a true moralist--neither a good Christian nor a good philosopher--neither a poet nor a sociologist--should have placed side by side, in one breath, in one gust of false eloquence, a killer together with whom?--a poor streetwalker, bending their completely different heads over that holy book. The Christian God, as understood by those who believe in in the Christian God, has pardoned the harlot nineteen centuries ago. The killer, on the other hand, must be first of all examined medically. The two are on completely different levels. The inhuman and idiotic crime of Raskolnikov cannot be even remotely compared to the plight of a girl who impairs human dignity by selling her body. The murderer and the harlot reading the eternal book--what nonsense. There is no rhetorical link between a filthy murderer, and this unfortunate girl. There is only the conventional link of the Gothic novel and the sentimental novel. It is a shoddy literary trick, not a masterpiece of pathos and piety. Moreover, look at the absence of artistic balance. We have been shown Raskolnikov's crime in all sordid detail and we also been given half a dozen different explanations for his exploit. We have never been shown Sonya in the exercise of her trade. The situation is a glorified cliche. The harlot's sin is taken for granted. Now I submit that the true artist is the person who never takes anything for granted."

It seems from this quote that Nabokov's failure to understand (or share) Dostoyevsky's interpretation of Christianity is transformed into a literary critique, when it should remain a religious debate. Rmhermen (talk) 15:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that, in fact Christianity or Dostoevsky's understanding of it, it seems to me, plays a minor role in this quote. What he's saying is that the crimes (or sins, if you will) of the two are of completely different qualities and are forcefully stuck together in a banal way, making the scene a cheap shot. To put it differently, I think he feels infinitely more sorry for the prostitute than he does for the murderer, and is disgusted at the way they are made out to be two peas in a pod. TomorrowTime (talk) 17:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which is exactly the misunderstanding; as the Christian doesn't see any "completely different qualities" and does see them as "two peas in a pod" Rmhermen (talk) 18:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you meant "as Dostoevsky's Christianity doesn't see "completely different qualities" and does see them as "two peas in a pod"." I take no position in this discussion, but this is hardly a universal Christian position. 86.166.42.171 (talk) 18:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good answer, though, Rmhermen! :) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Early literary examples of time travel[edit]

The Chinese novel Xiyoubu (Supplement to the Journey to the West, 1640) mentions Sun Wukong traveling through time from the Tang Dynasty to the Song Dynasty. I imagine there are earlier examples of time travel in either eastern or western writings. If so, what are they? --Ghostexorcist (talk) 12:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Time travel in fiction has some other examples. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Early Irish literature is full of journeys to strange places where times passes differently, which could be considered an early form of time travel. In Adventure of Nera, referred to in manuscripts of the 12th century and possibly dating as early as the 8th, for example, the hero takes a break from a feast at Cruachan and witnesses it being destroyed by a fairy army, which he follows into the fairy mound. After a year in the otherworld he returns to the real world to discover that it's the same night he left and Cruachan has not yet been destroyed, so he is able to forewarn the king and queen, who destroy the fairy mound and prevent the attack. A later, and better-known, example, is Oisín in Tir na nÓg, in which Oisín spends three weeks in the otherworld, and returns to Ireland to find 300 years have passed. --Nicknack009 (talk) 14:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some persons in the Bible experienced time travel by means of divinely inspired visions.

—Wavelength (talk) 19:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Time travel in fiction and List of time travel science fiction.

—Wavelength (talk) 19:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[I just noticed that Adam Bishop has already linked to the first article, and that one has a link to the second.

—Wavelength (talk) 19:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)][reply]

Those lists noticeably lack Louis-Sébastien Merciers L'An 2440, rêve s'il en fut jamais from 1771. Though still not earlier than the example mentioned by the OP, in the 1700s timetravel was often used in literature (especially the utopian kind), to be able to criticise current conditions under the guise of a utopian future society (in the same vein as the trick of using strangers as outside commentors of European customs like in Montesquieus Persian Letters). --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rip Van Winkle is a famous American story that features "time travel" of a sort; the title character time travels by sleeping for a few decades, essentially what later sci-fi writers would term "suspended animation" or something like that. --Jayron32 16:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest Coffin - English illustrator[edit]

There are many of his illustrations on the web - eg at http://www.flickr.com/photos/36844288@N00/4266687091/in/photostream/ - but finding information on him is difficult, even his birth and death dates don't crop up. Does anybody know anything more about him? Androstachys (talk) 21:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC) Ernest Maitland T Coffin 1868-1944. He appears in the 1911 Census in Westminster where is listed as aged 43 and born in Stoke, Devon and describes himself as an artist. The Ernest Maitland T Coffin birth is in 1868 which is roughly right and the district is Plymouth which include Stoke Damarall. His wife is Almeida Coffin aged 38 and he says they have been married 10 years, although the only marriage that matches is in 1910 Ernest Maitland T Coffin and Almeida Roberts which was only a year before not ten! This is the artist. He was married to my Great Aunt, Almeida Roberts,formally known as Amelia Roberts,from Kinver, Staffs. She was many years his junior. The family story is that Amelia, as she was then, won a newspaper beauty competition, and the prize was to go to London to get her portrait painted, - whether by him or an associate we do not know. This trip to London was obviously where she met him. My mother recalled them visiting her mother, Beatrice Roberts, Amelia's sister, and them having what she considered to be quite a grand lifestyle. My Aunt had several pieces of Ernest Coffin's originals, they were water colors of seascapes as I recall. There were no children of the marriage, and I have been unable to find him on any census. Almeida's father left his wife and children and went to live in America. We wonder whether Almeida and Ernest went out there later.[reply]

The quality of his illustrations is such that the museums and art galleries are bound to be aware of him. I have not information as to whether he formally practiced medicine in favour of art or did he practise both? Androstachys (talk) 21:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC) ^[1][reply]

Native American tactics[edit]

You see it all the time in western movies: the Indians ride around and around a wagon train that has formed a circle. This seems like a poor idea, exposing yourself to fire rather than taking cover or attacking at one point. Did they actually ever do this? Clarityfiend (talk) 23:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wagon train, it was "rare". But it does make some sense; if there is no cover (and on the plains, where would they go?), it could have been a way to protect supplies and non-combattants. Allowing the wagons to be exposed to fire is better than allowing people to be exposed, isn't it? Adam Bishop (talk) 03:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(I think the OP is questioning the American Indian tactics, as portrayed in film, when attacking a circle-of-wagons, yes?)

An encirclement of wagons is essentially a basic and classic military tactical formation: the Infantry square, which has a very long history, and is particularly effective against cavalry attacks. (Napoleon, for example, put it to notably good use at the Battle of the Pyramids). I doubt that all American Indian attacks on wagon-circles always went the same way, or at least not in the way that they are "always" portrayed doing in film. It's just difficult to attack a circle of wagons from horseback no matter what – but, of course, attacking anything that can shoot back at you is always risky – I imagine they did what they thought they needed to do, but whatever it (tactically) was did not, in the end, keep the pioneers from settling the West... WikiDao ☯ (talk) 03:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about attacking wagon trains, but of course some Native American warriors deliberately exposed themselves to the enemy for the honor of the thing. —Kevin Myers 04:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, prior to the kinds of firearms that were beginning to be developed in the late 19th century, that kind of cavalry tactic was fairly standard - the Indians probably picked it up from US troops. The advantage of the horse lies in its size and speed: a good rider is a difficult target for civil-war era rifles (not to mention for bow and arrow), and the rapid movement allows the riders to scope out and take advantage of weaknesses in defenses faster than the defending forces can adjust. the horse opera image of Indians riding around in circles and getting picked off at a distance one by one is nonsense. The tactic would be to keep moving at the far edge of the range of the settler's weapons, and then charge in at different points looking for an opening and firing off volleys. Once the indians found an opening the settlers were pretty much toast: rifles and handguns are not a lot of use at close quarters against 800 pounds of horse traveling at 30 miles per hour (almost as bad as trying to use a gun to defend yourself against an onrushing car, except a horse is a lot more maneuverable). --Ludwigs2 16:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That makes more sense. Thanks. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is true further back in history too, with arrows and swords. A medieval example of an army being surprised on its march, and "circling its wagons", is the Battle of Dorylaeum. (They didn't literally have wagons but the idea is the same, armed combattants surrounding and protecting baggage and non-combattants.) Adam Bishop (talk) 23:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the largest scale attack of Native Americans against circled wagons was the Battle of Birch Coulee. 150 or so US soldiers were on a mission to bury whites killed in the Dakota War or Sioux Uprising of 1862 in Minnesota. The US forces circled the wagons when they camped for the night, and surrounded the camp with soldiers as pickets or lookouts. Wagons were tied together by ropes, with the horses tied to the ropes of the circle of wagons (in one account) or all staked out at the open end of a semicircle of wagons, backed up against a ravine(in another account). A far larger force of Sioux surrounded the encampment and attacked, killing almost all the horses and a large number of soldiers. Indians definitely did not ride around and around the wagons, but approached on foot using whatever cover they could find, until close enough to fire accurately with rifles or shotguns. The soldiers improvised rifle pits and made breastworks of dirt dug with bayonets, dead horses, and dead soldiers. The soldiers each expended the 40 rounds of ammo they had been issued, then found that the 3000 reserve rounds were too large a caliber to fit in their rifles, so they had to whittle down the bullets to fit. The siege continued for over a day, with relief expeditions finally sent out from Fort Ridgely with artillery, finally able to drive away the Sioux. Accounts by leaders of both sides were written up years later [4]. The Sioux leader said they had very few killed compared to the soldiers. The typical western movie shows dozens or hundreds of Indians attacking a wagon train with no soldiers, only poorly armed civilians. A wagon provides little cover when the attacker is shooting from ground level hiding behind weeds or bushes or in a depression in the ground, since the wagon bed is so high up. Indians attacking wagons were more likely to just ride up while the wagons were in motion, without giving the drivers the opportunity to circle them and unhitch the horses, which would take a significant time. This was how they attacked and killed civilians of Minnesota seeking to flee to Fort Ridgely in that war. Deception was also a common tactic in 1862, telling the whites that they were only seeking to protect them from the "other Indians" who were slaughtering hundreds of civilians. It would be usually be possible to have a couple of attackers ride up alongside each wagon, to "get the drop" on the wagoneers before defensive formations could be achieved, or the attack could be made at a point where the geography would not allow wagons to form a circle. An Indian attack on horseback against an encamped wagon train might just seek to end the battle quickly by riding into the interior of the circle through any gap and conduct a quick slaughter like a cavalry charge. The attackers get to choose the site of the battle. "Human wave" attacks, like riding around and around shooting from the saddle with little regard for accuracy, while the defenders shot from cover, with no regard by the Native Americans for their own losses, were not typical. Birch Coolee was more like any Civil War battle than the movie version of an Indian attack on a wagon train. Edison (talk) 17:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

^ ~~~~Family history ~~~~~~~~

[1] ~~~~Family history ~~~~~~~~

[1]