Humanities desk
< March 21	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 23 >

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.

March 22

Breaking the fourth wall outside of theatre

Is the concept of the fourth wall (and breaking it) employed by scholarly or non-scholarly-but-popular studies of static artwork? This trompe-l'œil painting seems a perfect example of it, since the figure is seemingly interacting with the frame of the painting; the painting appears to be interacting with its nature as a painting, producing (at least in my mind) an effect vaguely comparable to The Treachery of Images. Basically, I'm left wondering whether this theatrical term is applied in this non-theatrical art context. Nyttend (talk) 00:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While attempting to find sources, ... I'm reasonably sure "breaking the 4th wall" has been used relating to Self-reference, especially works such as Escher's Drawing Hands, as well as "Metafiction" such as Don Quixote de la Mancha. Hofstadter's Gödel, Escher, Bach might be a source for relevant information. — Here's another (more subtle) example: Two Laughing Girls by Pere Borrell del Caso — And, I found a similar discussion in the archives: (Visual art breaking the cyber "fourth wall"). —71.20.250.51 (talk) 02:47, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a source:

Chambers, Robert (2010). Parody : the art that plays with art. New York: Peter Lang. p. 43. ISBN 1433108690. —71.20.250.51 (talk) 02:19, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One "non-scholarly-but-popular" site featuring lists of examples is TV Tropes' "Breaking the Fourth Wall", including songs, literature, comic books, ... ---Sluzzelin talk 06:43, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the references! I especially appreciate the Chambers book, since it's providing an overview of the subject instead of simply giving examples. Nyttend (talk) 23:07, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Internet and the End of the Cold War

Was it just a coincidence that the Internet gradually became available and widespread beginning shortly after the end of the Cold War (which I define as having ended in December 1991, which was when the Soviet Union collapsed)? I've previously been told that it was just a coincidence, but I simply want to be sure about this.

And Yes, this is obviously a serious question. Futurist110 (talk) 06:13, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are asking for an opinion on this. I don't think we will be able to provide any hard evidence. My opinion is that it was mainly coincidence, though it's quite likely that governments were less worried about the growth of the internet when secrecy was less important internationally, so they were more willing to allow the rapid expansion (that had already begun in the late 1980s) to continue. I would think that it is just as likely that the growing use of the internet had some influence on the ending of the cold war. Dbfirs 07:37, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answer. Yeah, maybe I am asking for an opinion on this (considering that cause and effect are sometimes hard to link together). However, there should be nothing wrong with providing links/sources which discuss this. Futurist110 (talk) 07:40, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The internet originated with ARPANET - ARPA (now DARPA) is an American military scientific research organization connected to various universities and government scientific institutions around the country - so I don't buy the "just a co-incidence" explanation quite so easily. The military nature of ARPANET meant much of the traffic it originally carried was military secrets. The end of the cold war affected DARPA very profoundly. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:46, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was the web (courtesy of Berners-Lee and UofI's Mosaic browser) that became widespread after the Cold War. Other parts of the net were available earlier (dial-up BBS, walled gardens, gopher, usenet, etc.) Rmhermen (talk) 15:50, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's always Kremvax... -- AnonMoos (talk) 16:12, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The internet would have hastened it. See samizdat. μηδείς (talk) 17:18, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Queen, our Duke

Why is it that the feminine form "Duchess/Duchesse" isn't used when referring to Queen Elizabeth as duke in the Channel Islands? --Lazar Taxon (talk) 14:18, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, it's just a tradition. See Duke of Normandy and Duke.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:42, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to, The_Origins_of_Political_Order , it is a consequence of Salic law being reintroduced by the reformation. Salic law had severe limits to what a woman could do or own, especially when it came to land ownership. Most continental realms who underwent the reformation abolished Justinian law, since this law was "rediscovered" in Bologna about 1070 by the Catholic Church, specifically by the man who later became Pope Gregory VII. There are many other examples of female regents formally having male titles after the reformation for the same reason, for example Christina of Sweden, whose formal title was "Kung" during her reign. These laws were the primary reason leading to Christina abdicating and trying to become Queen of Naples instead. See also the article on Queen regnant. Star Lord - 星王 (talk) 15:28, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

<POV> The_Origins_of_Political_Order is a pretty interesting book, especially the comparison between the history of China and India.</POV>.Star Lord - 星王 (talk) 15:35, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to this, https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kronprinsessan_Victoria#Tronf.C3.B6ljd Swedish law to permit a female child to inherit the throne was only changed as recently as 1980.Star Lord - 星王 (talk) 15:43, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this isn't some recent development, either — look at the "Official lauding" section of Hatshepsut, the female king [sic] of Egypt during the New Kingdom period. Nyttend (talk) 18:00, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In Lancashire the usual form of the Loyal Toast is " "The Queen, Duke of Lancaster." rossb (talk) 20:13, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Duchess is the spouse of a Duke. The Queen is Duke of some places in her own right. She might indeed by Duchess of Edinburgh, thanks to being married to Phil, but, since the fifteenth century the monarch has always had the title of Duke of Lancaster and only if the monarch has a wife would anyone be Duchess of said duchy. --Dweller (talk) 17:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any other British dukedoms that have been held by a woman, other than those held by the Crown? --Jayron32 17:48, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes: see Category:British duchesses and Category:English duchesses, and also List of peerages created for women. Proteus (Talk) 20:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That last list shows Anne Boleyn as the "Lady Marquess of Pembroke" (Marquess being a male title despite its -ess ending). That is correct. She was never the Marchioness of Pembroke (the female counterpart), although many sources tell us she was. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:11, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that she was termed "the Lady Marquess of Pembroke", but this didn't have the significance that is so often attached to it. "Marchioness" simply wasn't a common term for the wife of a Marquess at this point (and it should be remembered that it was still a very unusual title - Anne Boleyn's creation was only the tenth, the first having been nearly 150 years previously, and there were only two extant Marquessates - those of Dorset and Exeter - at the time of its creation), and wives of Marquesses were usually also called "the Lady Marquess of [Wherever]". Proteus (Talk) 12:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Proteus. But wasn't Anne unusual for being a Lady Marquess in her own right, rather than (just) a Lady Marquess by virtue of being the wife of a Marquess? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes, definitely. Suo jure peeresses were always very unusual right up to the Peerage Act 1963, and those of high rank particularly so. (As List of peerages created for women shows, Anne Boleyn was only the second woman to be created a peer, and the first who wasn't already one (the suo jure Duchess of Norfolk was already Countess of Norfolk through inheritance, and was given the former title at the same time as her grandson was created Duke of Norfolk so it was a bit of a fudge). There were of course several women who'd inherited peerages before then.) The point I was making is that it's often said either that Henry VIII was making some kind of a point by using the male form of the title rather than the female form, or that a female peer was such a novelty that it was thought that she'd have to have a male title. Neither is true. Proteus (Talk) 20:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, beautifully explicated. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:19, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is simply incorrect. The female holder of a Dukedom is a Duchess, as the examples in my reply to Jayron above demonstrate. And the Queen is not either Duke or Duchess of Lancaster, despite how she is sometimes toasted: as monarch, she holds the Duchy of Lancaster (the legal entity, essentially how a trust holding property with certain feudal rights), but does not hold the Dukedom of Lancaster (the peerage title), which has been extinct since its third creation merged in the Crown in the 15th century. Indeed, she could not: as the fount of honour, she is legally incapable of holding titles from herself, which is why all peerage titles held by a person who becomes monarch "merge in the Crown" (i.e. cease to exist, and are immediately available for regrant). Proteus (Talk) 20:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article https://www.jerseylaw.je/Publications/jerseylawreview/June99/le_rouai.aspx relates to both the Duke of Normandie and the Channel Isles as being a piece of harmless after-dinner whimsy: "To the Queen, our Duke" Star Lord - 星王 (talk) 16:07, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recipe "translation" please

Many recipes originating from the US use the term "stick(s)" as a quantity for butter - "Melt 3/4 of a stick of butter..." and so on. From that I deduce that butter is normally sold in a standard sized "stick" form in the US. So just how much butter is there in such a "stick"? I'm most familiar with metric measures, my local supermarket sells butter in waxed paper or metallic foil wrapped blocks of either 500g or 1kg, they occasionally have blocks of 250g too. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:22, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One stick of butter is 1/2 cup or 4 ounce, that is about 113 grams. You can use this website to convert between common units. - Lindert (talk) 16:30, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore the "1/2 cup", which is an approximation by volume; butter is sold by weight. --50.100.193.30 (talk) 20:01, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's that very odd habit in the US of using random volumes as measurements, rather than sensible weights. Derailing this question for a bit, in a recipe, how on earth would you know what size cup is meant? Surely everybody doesn't have a standard size cup? And a cup of flour is going to be less than a cup of sugar, ie density differences will completely throw your measurements off. Odd system! Fgf10 (talk) 20:14, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A measuring cup is 8 (volume) ounces, and pretty much everyone who cooks does have one. As for density differences, the recipe frequently specifies the density, such as "one cup of firmly packed flour".

Also, in some cases, the volume might be more important than the mass. Consider a pie where the pastry needs to be tucked over the top of the ingredients. In that case, the pastry must make it across the top without tearing, and that's a function of the volume of the ingredients, not their mass, regardless of the density of the chosen filling.

And note that measuring weight or mass has it's own problems, such as needing different measuring devices at different scales (pardon the pun). You probably can't use the same device to weigh the amount of saffron and the amount of rice to add when making saffron rice. And there's the tare weight of the container to consider, too. StuRat (talk) 20:26, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stu, I would be amazed if you have a recipe that uses so much saffron that you need to measure it rather than count the strands. And, if you did, my digital ktchen scales can handle it as easily as they can handle 4 kg of flour: my scales go to a tenth of a gram. 86.157.148.65 (talk) 16:30, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A tenth of a gram might not be precise enough for the saffron, and I doubt if the same scale can measure accurately both in the tenth of a gram range and the 4 kg range. The accuracy they display is often finer than the accuracy they can actually measure correctly. For example, I have bathroom scale that displays tenths of a pound, but it's only accurate to within maybe 2 pounds. StuRat (talk) 01:00, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can doubt it all you want. If you're using less than a tenth of a gram of saffron, as most recipes would, then you are counting out a few strands. You are not measuring it, any more than you measure a pinch of salt. 86.157.148.65 (talk) 17:54, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A metric cup measure is 250ml. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:44, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Setting up a scale to measure 100 grams of flour seems like quite a chore compared to scooping it with a standard cup, but I guess if you're accustomed to it .... —Tamfang (talk) 20:46, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The stick of butter in my refrigerator has regular markings that divide the stick into tablespoons and teaspoons (3 teaspoons = 1 tablespoon, for whatever random reason), and a little note telling you how many tablespoons per cup. Nobody uses measuring cups or measuring tablespoons to measure unmelted butter — we simply go by the markings on the package, presuming that the package-printers and the recipe-writers had the same quantities in mind. Nyttend (talk) 23:12, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tamfang, I never have to set up my scale to measure 100g; I have a kitchen scale which has a dial marked off in grams/kilograms and ounces/pounds. All I have to do is make sure I zero the dial each time I replace the pan. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:57, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

... and even for those of us who have "gone digital", pressing a tare button then adding flour until the display reads 100g is not exactly rocket science, and you don't have a measuring cup to wash up afterwards. On the other hand, I used to know someone who just added flour, and other ingredients, until it "looked right", without measuring anything! Dbfirs 07:23, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But we don't have anything but a measuring cup to clean up - and don't need to buy batteries. Rmhermen (talk) 22:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But if you're using a digital scale, you can measure everything into the bowl it's mixed in, straight away, so you don't have anything to wash except the bowl you mixed in. And you don't have to worry about how packed anything is. And you can switch ingredients easily, because a recipe that needs 100 g of sugar will generally take 100 g of any sugar, no conversions needed: you can even mix and match up to the same weight, if you run out of caster sugar after only 80 g. And you don't have to do that ridiculous thing of "1/2 a cup plus 3 tbsp" and things like that. 86.157.148.65 (talk) 16:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interpretation of a Philosophical Statement

"No problem today ?Possibly you are in the wrong path" - What can be the interpretation of this particular state.How this statement can be interpreted and related to real life. Can the famous story of ant and grasshopper be metaphorically related to the above mentioned stated.What was in the mind of the speaker when he made this statement.117.194.232.154 (talk) 16:47, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although we don't do your homework for you, we can point you in the right direction and provide some suggestions. Have you seen: The Ant and the Grasshopper?

Why do you think that a problem-free path might be the "wrong path"?

Think about the lives of important people who have made a difference in this world; was their path problem free? —71.20.250.51 (talk) 18:06, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you bowl without pins, grasshopper? InedibleHulk (talk) 18:10, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by bowl wthout pins grasshopper please explain -- 117.194.244.222 (talk · contribs) 06:40, 23 March 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

I think he's making a play on words, in reference to Kung Fu (TV series). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:05, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, partly (and to the fable). But I'm mainly saying without obstacles and solutions to them, there are no points. No points, no game. No game, no way to know if you're winning. If you don't know whether you're winning, you lead an unexamined life. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:01, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A slogan from decades ago, specifically used for system development, but could apply to any situation: "If things are going well, you're overlooking something." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:27, 22 March 2014 (UTC) Thank you for your explanation[reply]

why are you making that silly suggestion that i am asking for a homework solution.I wanted to know from you what is the interpretation of this statement which i came across when listening to a speech and could not make sense of it-why are snubbing me.117.194.231.230 (talk) 04:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing personal.

The sequence of questions sounded like it was taken from a worksheet. And these reference desks do get a lot of copy&paste questions from homework assignments. —71.20.250.51 (talk) 04:43, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I were to sum it up, I'd say that an easy life is not necessarily a good one (or even a happy one). Have you ever wondered why a game that is too easy is not much fun? If one is not being challenged then one is not making progress. 71.20.250.51 (talk) 04:53, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]