Humanities desk
< March 29	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 31 >

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 30

Chant and organum notation

The explanation of this discovery hinges on a distinction between "chant notation" and "organum notation", but I could find neither in such articles as neume, Gregorian chant#Notation, organon, and Medieval music#Notation. It is tempting to assume that one refers to the relatively modern looking notation on top of the picture there, and the other to the unheightened neumes. But that's just a guess; does anyone know more? — Sebastian 02:32, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, "organum notation" refers to the upper part, but it isn't really a coherent notation system. When organum became more common, in the Notre Dame school of c.1100, actual organum notation looked quite different. What we have here is an early specimen of experimental graphic representation of pitch along a vertical scale of note names given on the left, somewhat similar to this [1] (from musica enchiriadis, the earliest known theoretical treatise on polyphony, which seems to predate the piece described there). What's interesting about this new found sample is that the notation uses things that are essentially two different forms of "note heads" (horizontal lines in the upper voice, circles in the lower voice). The vertical lines between them aren't of course "stems" (so the "modern-looking" quality is quite incidental), they seem to be an attempt at visualizing the vertical interval between the two simultaneous notes. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:28, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great explanation, thanks a lot! In that case, my edit here, which assumed that the Cambridge article was correct, may need to be reworded. Would you mind taking a look at it? Thanks! — Sebastian 19:44, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, as far as I can see, the Musica enchiriadis is older, so the text was essentially correct before your edit. (I guess the Musica enchiriadis is the reason why the Cambridge articles emphasises that the newly found piece is the oldest so far "intended for practical use", the enchiriadis being a theoretical treatise). Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Beheading

I do not want to turn this into a debate - this is not what Wikipedia is for, but I have been wondering about this for some time. The Quran says that mutilating bodies is haram, yet beheadings and the chopping off of hands seems to be a typical punishment. Why is this? $KägeTorä - (影虎) (もしもし！)$ 10:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An article like Criticism of Islamism should get you started on your research; it is important to note that Islamist extremist groups are not widely recognized by mainstream denominations of Islam as practicing a particularly acceptable form of the faith. Whatever justification they use for their practices is not necessarily recognized by the vast majority of Muslims as "proper Islam". Such groups are basically the Westboro Baptist Church of the Islamic world; just as nearly all mainstream Christian groups find what WBC does as abhorrant and denounce their beliefs and practices, so too do most Islamic denominations about the extremism of such groups as ISIS and the like. --Jayron 32 13:11, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Beheading has historically been a mainstream form of execution in Islamic (and of course non-Islamic) countries, so I find it rather hard to believe that there is really any analogy with the marginality of the Westboro Baptist Church. Frankly, it's difficult to see how you can kill someome without 'multilating' their body, and since warfare and execution are, obviously sanctioned in Islam, I don't see what the issue is. Paul B (talk) 20:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hudud might have some answers. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:49, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also Beheading in Islamism#Scriptural justification, although wikipedia articles in this area may need to be read with even greater care than usual (for example it is missing the counterpoint made in this short PBS video). Abecedare (talk) 20:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can gather there is no Quranic rule against mutilating bodies, but there are hadith recorded by Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim. The issue is the interpretation of "mutilation", whether this means any post-mortem damage to the body, any intentional humiliating of the dead by disfiguring them, or only certain specific acts. Removing hands, for example, as proof of death may not be seen as 'mutilation'. There are also some Islamic scholars who argue that there are exceptions to the rule, especially when the enemy have mutilated Muslim dead. Paul B (talk) 20:35, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By "chopping off of hands" do you mean the punishment for theft? That is of course sanctioned in sharia law and is not marginal at all. There are other instances of such physical punishment. Recently there was a literal case of an 'eye for an eye' when a man was judicially blinded in one eye in Iran for an acid attack on a woman, which blinded the victim in one eye [2]. Paul B (talk) 20:45, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Religions oftentimes make self-contradictory claims. Some have explicit provision for it. "God can change his mind. Later pronouncments override earlier ones. Do you question his power to revise himself, ye of little faith, surely you know the punishment for apostasy?" So it goes. 88.112.50.121 (talk) 23:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding punishments such as chopping off the hands of thieves, this does have several advantages:

1) It makes it rather difficult for them to continue on as thieves. Thus, they likely have a lower recidivism rate than those who are imprisoned or punished in some other way.

2) It provides a visible deterrent to other would-be thieves, for the rest of the life of the thief with no hands.

3) It's quite inexpensive to implement, versus the cost of imprisoning a criminal for years, or perhaps decades, once recidivism is accounted for.

On the negative side, it could make it quite difficult for them to survive or repay their debt to the one they stole from. Then there's the "cruel and unusual" argument, but that's all culturally dependent. StuRat (talk) 04:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That all goes for beheading, as well, minus the part where a murderer continually deters the public by walking around without a head. Initially losing it is often public, though, and quite inglorious. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:26, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, Decapitation#Honour notes that some people prefer losing their head. That article has a lot about general beheading, which can apply to any or all cultures. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument would apply in Quranism. Most Muslims are hadithists, i.e, Sunni, Shiite, Ibadi. 89.242.84.104 (talk) 14:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]