Humanities desk
< June 8	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 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.

June 9[edit]

American virtuosity[edit]

What is Stanley Crouch referring to at 35:55 when he speaks about American virtuosity being based on making something difficult seem easy? Mention is made of Lincoln Kirstein but a quick search doesn't trace the idea back to him. Bus stop (talk) 03:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to tell exactly, because it isn't a direct quote, but it appears here that Kirstein said such a thing about ballet dancers under the direction of George Balanchine, per this document. I'm digging for other sources of the quote, however. --Jayron32 04:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is pretty close: "Most important, they must make these very difficult things look beautiful and easy",[1] and "Once he had trained dancers who could perform the ballets in his head, he created a faster, more angular way of dancing -- to match the style of New York. He invented a new kind of plotless ballet -- like the modernists who were painting abstract pictures. Like many immigrants to America, he combined the traditions of his past with the vital spirit he found in his adopted country."[2] Thanks. Bus stop (talk) 05:05, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And then there is Piet Hein's Grook:

To make your way in learning

When other roads are barred

Take something very easy

And make it very hard.

Bielle (talk) 16:27, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I wasn't aware of Piet Hein or the literary form Grook. Here is one I like:

A MAXIM FOR VIKINGS

Here is a fact

that should help you fight

a bit longer:

Things that don't act-

ually kill you outright

make you stronger.[3] Bus stop (talk) 21:48, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I like grooks. Don't I, Bielle. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 05:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Box with diagonal line = cavalry[edit]

Why is a box with a diagonal line typically used to represent cavalry in diagrams of battles? Example. Google mentions this phenomenon in many places, but always (1) referring to it as a common thing, or (2) talking about a line of cavalry troopers advancing in a diagonal direction. Nyttend (talk) 13:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cavalry strap: NATO_Military_Symbols_for_Land_Based_Systems#History. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:54, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any connection to the way a knight moves on a chessboard? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:20, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article linked by Fifelfoo above says that it was "inspired by the cavalry sabre strap", presumably meaning a crossbelt. In chess, the bishop moves diagonally; a knight moves two spaces and then one at a right angle, or one space and two at a right angle. "The complete move therefore looks like the letter L." Alansplodge (talk) 16:28, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a much older convention than the 1984 date mentioned in the NATO Military Symbols article; this 1912 map of The Battle of Waterloo and this 1828 map of the Battle of Talevera both use it. Alansplodge (talk) 16:44, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, I found this 1763 map of the Seige of Havana which shows the same symbol, but whether it actually represents cavalry or other troops is unclear. Alansplodge (talk) 17:02, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alansplodge, those maps are a very cool addition to the answer!184.147.118.213 (talk) 17:06, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I suspect the origins are lost in the mists of time. This article says that the symbols originated "throughout Western militaries during the decades after Waterloo", although the example that I found (above) predates that by half a century. Alansplodge (talk) 17:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added a paragraph to the NATO Military Symbols page, in line with the source linked above. Alansplodge (talk) 18:02, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with 184.147.118.213: this was a really helpful series of maps, so thanks a lot! I had already guessed that "its origins are murky" might be the answer, but I had no clue if that were the case. Nyttend (talk) 19:48, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]