Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 January 21

= January 21 =

Stradivarius violin authentication
If a person were to come across what they believe to be a Stradivarius violin that is dated right on the violin itself as 1742, how would one go about getting it authenticated? --Doug talk 01:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Any big auction house will look at something this exceptional for free. Tell them what you think you have, and why, and if your explanation matches what they know of the object, they will greet you at the door. You don't have to be bound by their assessment, though they do seem to have some of the world's best experts on staff. Bielle (talk) 02:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * At the moment, Charles Beare is the leading dealer and expert on Stradivarius. He often appraises claimed Stradivarius violins for auction houses. Xn4  02:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The possibility of finding a previously unremarked Stradivarius, that is a genuine instrument but with no provenance (previous history), is vanishingly small. The article Stradivarius lists known instruments, including those missing ones that have been lost or stolen. There are more violins bearing "Stradivarius" labels than there are genuine Stradivarius violins. --Wetman (talk) 09:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Great answers, appreciate it. I do believe that the likelihood of it being a "real" Stradivarius is slim because there is no previous history or chain of ownership records. The people that I know that have possession of this "old violin" are just hoping it is a Stradivarius. Thanks for help. --Doug talk 14:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't forget however, that some 'fake' Stradivarius can be valuable too. 217.168.3.246 (talk) 19:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. We have now since figured out a couple of people to go to have it looked over for value, based on these excellent Wikipedian answers. Thanks for all the great ideas and help. --Doug talk 23:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Basic JC-1 H2 Economics help needed (again)
What is the difference between change in demand and change in quantity demanded? Can someone explain the flow concept to me? All I know is that it has something to do with quantity demanded. My teacher asked us to find out more about the flow concept but Wikipedia does not have an article on it. Lastly, I don't understand the concept of the invisible hand. Can someone explain that also? Sorry to bother all of you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.21.155.11 (talk) 02:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Have a look at Invisible_hand for your last question. GreatManTheory (talk) 15:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Demand is a function that determines how much of a good will be demanded according to the price of that good, prices of substitute and complementary goods, income of the agents, tastes, etc. So, it is a complex function to work with.
 * Traditionally, demand is graphically analized under a ceteris paribus clause: any other factors but the own good's price are considered fixed, and hence, a function between own price and quantity demanded is built in this way. Such is the logic beneath the demand curves you see in graphcis.
 * A change in one of the fixed factors (a variation of a substitute good's price, for instance) can be represented in this graphical approach moving the curve to reflect that new value. So, if the substitute good's price rose, the demand curve would move upwards to reflect the new relationship between quantity and price.
 * On the other hand, a change in the own good's price needs no curve movement. You just move from one point of the curve to another one matching the new price.
 * In this context, a change of quantity demanded corresponds to a change over the curve (that is, a change in own price), while a change of demand corresponds to changes in any other factor affecting the function, which will translate in a movement of the entire curve. Pallida  Mors  16:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I have a better idea of the concept of the invisible hand after reading that article. People make economic decisions that are selfish but end up benefiting society.

So quantity demanded is to do with the price of the good and is represented by the points on the curve, while demand changes because of other factors and is represented by movement of the curve, because the change in demand applies at all prices?

What about the flow concept? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.21.155.15 (talk) 02:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That's right. For the flow concept, I'm in darkness. The only thing that comes to my mind is circular flow, but I'm not sure if that is what you were looking for. Pallida  Mors  20:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

And just out of curiosity, what is JC-1 H2?? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

JC-1 means I am in my first year of junior college. In JC, I can take a subject at H1, H2 or H3 level. H1 gives you a good foundation, H2 is for those who want to study the subject in university and H3 is for those who are very good in the subject.

The first page of the chapter about Supply says "Supply is a flow concept, i.e. it is expressed as so many units per period of time." Why do I always see the phrase "ceteris paribus" in my lecture notes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.21.155.16 (talk) 02:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Alright, alright. Now I see. Your wealth is a stock, for instance. It is an accumulation of past incomes. Demand is a flow. It happens from period to period (of time). Flows are like a water stream pouring out of a tap. Stocks are like the water accumulating in the bucket down the tap.
 * As for ceteris paribus, omnipresent in Economics, it is used whenever you want to study some variation (usually, of only one variable) mantaining fixed other factors. For instance, if the price of a substitute good rises demand will increase, ceteris paribus (i. e. I don't know what will happen if the price of a substitute good rises and wealth decreases).
 * An opposite concept, mutatis mutandis, is hardly seen in economic texts. Pallida  Mors  15:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

an american bank in budapest
i live in budapest but need a u.s. bank account and don't have one now. do you think I can open a u.s. bank account from here, and if so at which bank? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.51.122.8 (talk) 03:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Do any U.S. banks have offices in Budapest? If so, you might start by talking to them.  --Anon, 07:03 UTC, January 21.


 * Alternatively ask your own bank if they partner with US banks. I opened a US account with Wells Fargo from abroad, through HSBC. Rockpock  e  t  18:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * so you didn't have an account with them and opened one through HSBC -- but I don't get why you call it "your own bank" if you didn'talredyhave an acct with them... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.51.122.8 (talk) 23:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * HSBC was my own bank. I told them I wanted to open a US account and they arranged for me to open one with Wells Fargo. HSBC gave me the forms, I filled them out, then they did the rest. Perhaps whatever bank you use in Budapest could do the same. Rockpock  e  t  19:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to Google for... surely at least one must! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.51.122.23 (talk) 11:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, here is one to start you off. --Richardrj talkemail 11:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.51.122.23 (talk) 14:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

History of South India
Ezhava caste and Nadars caste Of present Kerala and Tamil Nadu respectively are of the same caste.There are a large number of similarities in their history?Madrasjat (talk) 12:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)madrasjat


 * See Ezhava and Nadar (caste). Xn4  21:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Who said it?
I have googled "books" to find the phrase "loved him - hated her" without result. Was it in an old movie or play? LShecut2nd (talk) 15:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds to me like a well-worn phrase to describe a stock response to a romantic novel, play or film. Probably hard to find a source for it. --Richardrj talkemail 15:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it's more (or also) a response to thing people say after meeting a couple where one likes one partner more than the other. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 16:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * An early use is Danny Kaye's - Friend: "So how did you like the Himalayas?" Kaye: "Loved him, hated her." There are also some claims of a one-line film review by Dorothy Parker - "Loved her, hated him", quoted, for instance, in John J. Abt and Michael Myerson's Advocate and Activist: Memoirs of an American Communist (1993). I can't trace a true original of this, but it may be based on this passage from a Dorothy Parker letter about the Barnaby comic strip published in PM on October 3, 1943, headed A Mash Note to Crockett Johnson: "I love Barnaby, I love little Jane, I love Gus, the Ghost, I hate and admire and envy Mr. O'Malley, above all I love Gorgon, the dog." If so, the development into "Loved her, hated him" and its connotations has taken a new direction, as Parker in fact says more than this about Barnaby. Anyway, since its beginnings, one way around or the other, the phrase has clearly turned into a stock summary of poor criticism which fails to deal with real strengths and weaknesses, especially in the world of entertainment.  Xn4  20:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It was also Mort Sahl's response to the film Ben Hur in a famously brief film review . SaundersW (talk) 21:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

BIBLE commentary needed
American Standard Version(translation)

For that day is a day of the Lord, Jehovah of hosts, a day of vengeance, that he may avenge him of his adversaries: and the sword shall devour and be satiate, and shall drink its fill of their blood; for the Lord, Jehovah of hosts, hath a sacrifice in the north country by the river Euphrates. (Jeremiah 46:10)

where can i get the commentary for this verse? and what is the connection of euphrates with sacrifice? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.128.4.231 (talk) 16:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * According to net.bible, it is poetic reference to the armies King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon defeating the Egyptian army by the Euphrates. On "vengeance" and sacrifice/offering, net.bible says: "Most commentators think that this is a reference to the Lord exacting vengeance on Pharaoh Necho for killing Josiah, carrying Jehoahaz off into captivity, and exacting heavy tribute on Judah in 609 BC." In short, it seems that the destruction of the Egyptian army is being described as like a sacrifice to God, and it happened near the Euphrates. Pfly (talk) 18:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Looking at the Word commentary by Keown, we have:
 * "The entire verse employs the imagery of Holy War (“day of vindication,” “devouring sword,” “sacrifice”). The root נקם, usually translated “vengeance,” should be translated “vindication” (Mendenhall, The Tenth Generation, 69–104). This sudden outburst of Holy War prophecy contrasts the failure of Pharaoh’s war with the success of the Lord’s Holy War (Snaith, JSS 16 [1971] 25–26). C. de Jong (“Deux oracles,” 375–76) has emphasized the ambiguity of the term צריו, “his enemies.” On the one hand, the Egyptians are clearly meant, and the wordplay with מצרים, “Egypt,” reinforces this identification. On the other hand, the partisans of Josiah, the anti-Egyptian party in Judah, who would have understood Egypt’s defeat as judgment for the death of Josiah, would have included Jehoiakim and his supporters as the Lord’s enemies. (Keown, G. L. 2002. Vol. 27: Word Biblical Commentary : Jeremiah 26-52. Word Biblical Commentary . Word, Incorporated: Dallas)"
 * But in any textual study, it is important to look at the context (ie the whole chapter, at least). It is worth also noting this from the explanation of the passage as a whole:
 * "These events provide the settings for these judgment oracles concerning Egypt. It is important to note that nowhere in these oracles is there the suggestion that Egypt faced disaster because of her mistreatment of Israel/Judah. There is no expression of hatred or vengeance against Egypt, although satire, irony, and the taunt are fully in evidence. Egypt is judged for pride and aggression as is typical in other oracles concerning the nations. In fact it is doubtful that these oracles were intended for Egyptian ears. Rather the purpose of the oracles was to lead the kings of Judah away from dependence on Egypt and toward the acceptance of vassalage to Babylon so that the nation might live. (ibid.)"

If you are wanting to study the Bible seriously, it is worth investing in a good commentary: University bookshops will offer you scholarly works; church and Christian bookshops frequently stock accessible commentaries for the layman. Gwinva (talk) 20:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Note that the translation used at the Chabad website uses the straightforward word "massacre" where the ASV has the euphemistic "sacrifice." -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Who is more evil, Macbeth or Lady Macbeth?
Who is more evil, Macbeth or Lady Macbeth? Both let their ambition cloud their minds and lead them to make poor decisions...and both eventually feel guilt beyond measure afterwards. If one of them didn't feel bad about the murders it would be an easy pick, but I can't decide. So who do you think is more evil? Thank you for the help. --71.117.45.115 (talk) 17:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Verdi's take on it was that Lady Macbeth seduced her husband into the murder of their king. In cultures that see evil in man having come from Eve's or any woman's seduction, she would get the prize. But, Macbeth not only killed the king but also his friend, which is worse than regicide. One of the greatest acts of evil that I've heard was of a young boy forced by his father to drown his pet dog.(a true story) The man grew up to be a wife- and child- beater. All of his progeny have had miserable lives.LShecut2nd (talk) 19:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Undoubtedly, it was Lady Macbeth who planned the murder of Duncan and persuaded Macbeth to carry it out. We get the impression that Macbeth would have been happier to sit back and wait for events. And in the end, the greater trauma of guilt belongs to Lady Macbeth. Xn4  19:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Both regret their involvement in the murder of Duncan but whereas Lady Macbeth is so stricken with remorse that she goes mad and kills herself, Macbeth decides that having committed one murder he may as well commit some more (I am in blood / Stepp'd in so far that, should I wade no more, / Returning were as tedious as go o'er): hence Banquo, Macduff's family and servants, and no doubt others. So it's Macbeth who takes the prize for evil. Gdr 21:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you all for your opinions and advice thus far; it's given me much to ponder. --71.117.45.115 (talk) 02:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * By the way, it seems that evil can be measured in turps (just Google "unit of evil"). I don't know why.--Shantavira|feed me 09:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Backward construction of turpitude, of the moral kind? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Is the number killed the measure of evil? What if a soldier kills one civilian while another kills two or more enemy-combatants? What if the civilian was a woman or child? This question has driven some insane.LShecut2nd (talk) 13:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think you can look at the act itself to determine 'evilness' (as though it were an absolute measure), but must look at the motivation or thought processes of the person involved. Take your soldiers above: What if the soldier who killed other combatants enjoyed it?  What if he was filled with hate?  And your civilian killer: perhaps he's been filled with remorse ever since, and has now dedicated his life to looking after the victims of war.  And there's the classic examples of killing one person to sasve twenty more, etc....  Theorising's hard, as there are so many variables, including things we will never know (like what the person really thinks).  But in this case, if Lady Macbeth shows remorse, that's a point in  her favour, at least. Macbeth justs gets hardened.  Gwinva (talk) 19:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Would the question even have arisen in Shakespeare's time? Were the theatre-goers just looking for a good show with ghosts and fighting? I ask naively.LShecut2nd (talk) 15:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course they were (or the majority of them). But we're no different: shoot-em-up films (especially with aliens or ghosts) are pretty popular today, too. Gwinva (talk) 01:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)