Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2014 May 5

= May 5 =

The long arm of the victim


Isn't her arm huge ? It's as big as his leg. Was she supposed to be an Amazon, was he a midget, or was Cezanne not good at perspective yet ? StuRat (talk) 00:12, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Like another famous post-impressionist, Van Gogh, Cezanne deliberately distorted proportion in many of his paintings (perhaps in this case to emphasize something grotesque or monstrous). There's a brief discussion of this technique here . OttawaAC (talk) 00:36, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't have access to that article. StuRat (talk) 01:46, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Here's a different source that will tell you a bit about Cezanne's approach. “The young Cézanne wanted to make people scream,” says French art historian Jean-Claude Lebensztejn. “He attacked on all fronts, drawing, color, technique, proportion, subjects . . . he savagely demolished everything one loves.” OttawaAC (talk) 01:54, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Indeed. It's a deliberate distortion of proportion for artistic effect. My favorite example of this kind of thing, not by an Impressionist and not remotely for the same purpose, is what Mantegna did in Lamentation over the Dead Christ, in which Jesus has very teeny, tiny little feet. Evan (talk&#124;contribs) 01:49, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Awww... InedibleHulk (talk) 02:15, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Just looking at this cold, with no context or formal training, I'm pretty sure that little red woman has the big red guy wrapped around her tiny finger, and has had this gargantuan slain over some minor slight. Meanwhile, her husband stands by, almost featureless, but betraying an ever so faint look of regret, since he had loved the giant, after she had saved him from bandits. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:11, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * It appears I was probably mostly wrong. Just skimming through that article, I can't really tell what's going on. I like how it has a character named "Blonde", though. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:18, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * And now I see I may have been misled by the vague term "Die Entführung", and this has probably nothing to do with that. Do we even know for sure that she's a she? Men get abducted sometimes. Still, that's a pretty big arm. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:23, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The German Wikipedia (sort of) says "Subjects of his paintings from this period are portraits of family members or demonic-erotic content in which resonate own traumatic experiences. Examples are The Abduction and Murder." So maybe she is he himself. Was Cézanne ever abducted? Anyway, thanks for sharing this, Stu. Never heard of the guy, but he's pretty good, in a Night Gallery way. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:38, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * From The Fitzwilliam Museum, which holds this painting: "The subject of this painting has been much discussed. One theory identifies the figures as Hercules and Alcestis, whom he has rescued from the Underworld. However, it is more generally believed that it represents the abduction of Proserpine by Pluto, as recounted in Ovid’s Metamorphoses."  John M Baker (talk) 13:04, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Die Entführung (formally "The Kidnapping", though the word can also mean Abduction or Elopement) is one of several works depicting naked male and female figures in explicit erotic contact that Paul Cézanne painted in his dark period 1861-1870 including The Rape, The Murder (depicts a man stabbing a woman who is held down by his female accomplice), The Orgy, Afternoon in Naples with Black Servant and later Bacchanal (Der Liebeskampf) (1875-80). When an artist has used such extreme contrast and distorted figures to bring a female hand into stroking range of the male's genitals at the geometrical center of the canvas, peu des innocents, bien évidemment, c'est de donner une branlette! 84.209.89.214 (talk) 23:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Hadn't thought of that, but yeah, it is just hanging low enough. Not sure I'd call it "explicit" if someone has to point it out, but somewhat "erotic". On that note, I still wouldn't see a woman at all, if Stu hadn't planted that seed in my head. She looks a bit like Gérard Depardieu, who was apparently in Get Out Your Handkerchiefs (written "from the middle") and The Left-Handed Woman (directed by Peter Handke). Or perhaps a great-grandma Roussimoff. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:22, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your answers all. StuRat (talk) 21:27, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

effect of gold influx,
Hi, during times of pure gold standard, and where gold was the standard "currency", have there been cases of a large 'inflation' or other 'printing of money' simply by virtue of huge stores of gold being discovered and brought into the economy? (Example, maybe columbus pillaged a lot of gold from north america, and that sort of thing). If so, what was the result? Was it very similar to inflation of the money supply as happens by fiat? 212.96.61.236 (talk) 02:51, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, that would have tended to cause inflation, but there would also be a stabilizing effect due to gold, unlike paper money, being useful in itself. So, if the cost of gold went down, more people would use it for jewelry, utensils, false teeth, etc., and that additional demand would keep the price from dropping too low.  So, unlike with fiat money, you wouldn't get an inflationary spiral, just a one time jump to a new level.  See Inflation. StuRat (talk) 03:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * It was my understanding that its value as money was always far above its alternative uses - so the alternatives didn't really matter or help prop it up? Much the same way as dollar bills have an alternative use as pillow stuffing material but this usage is hardly going to prop it up... likewise if the alternative uses have a lower price than gold as money, they aren't going to prop up the price of gold...  You mention that there are specific cases of a one-time jump due to gold influx.  Could you mention them?  Did they happen during the california gold rush, for example?  Discovery of the new world?  Etc.  Thanks. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 03:24, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Gold certainly has more intrinsic value than paper money. The goal would of course be to make gold coins worth more than the value of the gold, because otherwise people might just melt down the coins and use the gold directly.  However, if the price were to drop rapidly, then it would hit that level.


 * As far as periods with a large influx of gold into an economy, I'd look at when Spain extracted shiploads of gold from the Americas, using slave labor for mining. They expected it to help their economy to a huge degree, but it didn't seem to help as much as they expected, in part due to inflation, leading them to lose power relative to England and others (the defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588 didn't help either). StuRat (talk) 03:42, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * See Price revolution for documentation on the effects of Spanish treasure fleets carrying gold (and silver) from the Americas to Europe. As far as intrinsic value, paper money can't really be worth more than the paper it's printed on — the ink doesn't make the paper more useful if people won't take it as a medium of exchange.  In fact, it might be worth less than blank paper, simply because you can't really print anything on dollar bills, but you can print useful stuff on blank paper.  Nyttend (talk) 03:58, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm reminded of the Dilbert cartoon where his pointy-haired boss admired him for taking briefcases full of paperwork home each night, to which he replied "It gives me a warm feeling, sir". Later that night we see him shoveling it into his fireplace. StuRat (talk) 04:13, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * According to this article, it was "181 tons of gold and 16,000 tons of silver Spain got between 1500 and 1650 from the New World. Not a good time to be a Spanish vampire. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:08, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Are you thinking of silver bullets ? Those were the legendary method used to kill werewolves, not vampires. StuRat (talk) 04:18, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, the best way to kill a vampire is with a werewolf. Vampires would have had it good. IBE (talk) 13:53, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Some vampires don't like small change, e.g. Blade's nemeses and Truly Bloody ones. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:50, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Silver was traditionally considered "pure" and used to ward off various evils. The whole silver bullet thing was more of a Hollywood addition to the werewolf myth. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 19:00, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

212.96.61.236 -- Over the course of the nineteenth century, economic activity was increasing faster than available gold, so that there was a long-term slight deflationary trend, periodically counteracted by discoveries of gold. For those who think that deflation is a bad thing, the periodic gold-rushes were in fact overall positive (though economically it would have been even better if expansions in the money supply could have been timed appropriately, instead of occurring randomly with respect to cycles of bust and boom). The whole "bimetallism" controversy in the United States during the late 19th century was mainly about those who wanted to pursue non-deflationary debtor-friendly policies vs. those in favor of creditor-friendly policies (even if slightly deflationary) -- see the Cross of Gold speech, etc... AnonMoos (talk) 11:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Our article Spanish Empire notes the inflationary impact of the sudden inflow of New World gold and silver:
 * “During the 16th century, Spain held the equivalent of US$1.5 trillion (1990 terms) in gold and silver received from New Spain. Ultimately, however, these imports diverted investment away from other forms of industry and contributed to inflation in Spain in the last decades of the 16th century: "I learnt a proverb here", said a French traveler in 1603: ‘Everything is dear in Spain except silver’.”
 * There’s more in Economic history of Spain:
 * ” However, the large volumes of precious metals from America led to inflation, which had a negative effect on the poorer part of the population, as goods became overpriced. This also hampered exports, as expensive goods could not compete in international markets.”DOR (HK) (talk) 07:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Gold standard and redeeming the "physical" metal
From what I understand, a gold standard is supposed to create a degree of financial stability, due to the fact that gold, unlike paper money, cannot be printed, thus limiting inflation.

My question is, in those economies which had a gold standard (or a hypothetical but unlikely future one), would the system be able to cope with someone hoarding the currency, then going to the central bank and saying "stand and deliver (the physical metal)"? Or would all hell break loose, of the sort seen on Silver Thursday? The Hunt brothers hoarded silver futures contracts, representing physical silver which in fact did not exist. When they demanded physical delivery, Silver Thursday was the result. What would stop a gold standard economy from developing similar issues (such as a run on the physical metal), other than an Executive Order 6102 style ban on citizens owning physical gold (which was a rather dictatorial measure)? Could a government allow physical redemption by citizens, and still have a gold standard survive? (I'm aware that under the U.S. system, the only ones who could physically redeem were foreign governments, and, as I said, "common citizens" were banned from even owning significant quantities of gold. I'm curious how other gold-standard economies worked, or how they could / would hypothetically work). 124.180.75.84 (talk) 14:51, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem you describe occurs only when the gold standard operates alongside a paper currency, fractional reserve banking, and legal tender rules obliging creditors to accept paper currency in lieu of gold. If, instead, only gold itself is legal tender (perhaps alongside silver, paper, or other media at their market exchange rates to gold), the problem you describe cannot occur.  Otherwise, variants of the problem you describe tend to occur, such as the financial crisis of the 1930s, the Panic of 1907, and others.  Marco polo (talk) 19:48, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Can't a paper currency be literally a gold standard, if the slips represent gold directly? Or does a "gold standard" mean that people actually trade in physical gold and not paper redeemable for gold? (Meaning that if you are in a country with a pure gold standard, by definition your wallet must contain gold coins - if it contains state-backed currency that is not 100% gold - but represents it - then you are not living in a gold standard country??) 212.96.61.236 (talk) 20:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, paper currencies can be linked to a gold standard, but unless they are strictly limited to the amount of gold that backs them, they can lead to "runs" that result in the failure of the bank that issues the paper. Marco polo (talk) 00:41, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Marco polo is right when he says that if only gold is legal tender then problems of the Bunker Hunt variety cannot occur. They also cannot occur if the currency is on a gold standard (i.e. the coins are minted in some base metal, but set at a fixed rate to gold) or on a pure gold exchange standard. However, he has misled you by implying that the Panic of 1907 would have been averted if gold had been the only legal tender. It is almost certainly the case that a gold-based currency was a principal cause of the Panic of '07, and it is likely that if the only currency in use had been gold coins the problems of that time would have been far worse. It is also likely that a rigid adherence to the gold standard was an important contributory factor to other financial crises of the pre-Bretton Woods era, including the problems of the 1930s. The balance of evidence is that use of a gold standard made the Great Depression worse and longer-lasting than it might otherwise have been. RomanSpa (talk) 07:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Heard this podcast from the BBC's show Analysis, which informs very directly upon the questions you are asking, a few years back. Took me more than half an hour to track this bloody thing down again, but I was not to be denied! :)  S n o w  talk 19:15, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Now to answer your original question: if a government were to run a gold standard, and be faced with a sudden large delivery of gold with the request that it be turned into money, would the gold standard survive, and what would happen following such an event? Fortunately, we can answer that question directly from history, by considering the California Gold Rush of the late 1840s/early 1850s. At that time the US government did indeed allow deliveries of gold to be paid for directly with paper currency. Many readers will have seen scenes in cowboy films in which a grizzled prospector turns up at a redeeming institution (at first a merchant, later a banking institution, and later still a representative of the San Francisco Mint) with a gold nugget, has it assayed, and walks away with a wallet full of coins or bills. If this money stays in the prospector's wallet, there is no change to the economy at large: all that has happened is that the government has some more gold in a vault somewhere, and there has been no increase in the currency in circulation. The government and the economy can cope with this quite easily. However, money tends not to stay in prospectors' wallets (nor in most other people's!), but ends up getting spent. At this point there is more money in circulation in the economy, but there has been no increase in production or economic activity elsewhere - there are the same number of goods available to buy. With more money chasing the same number of goods, there will be price inflation. This causes problems for the government, which has its economic plans disrupted, and for every citizen, because everything suddenly costs more. As you will see from our article on the gold standard, particularly note 54, "Soaring gold output from the California and Australia gold rushes is linked with a 30 percent increase in wholesale prices from 1850 through 1855". The economic side-effects thereafter become many and complicated, ranging from changes in trade patterns (the USA became more reliant on foreign-produced food as a result of the California Gold Rush) to increased levels on inequality and a years-later decline in wealth based on individual merit (as inherited wealth for the children of the lucky few increases), with concomitant falls in later GDP growth. Mercifully, the world's move away from the gold standard protects us from problems of this kind.
 * It is important to note that you have been misled about the effects of the gold standard: it does not provide particular financial stability, which is part of the reason why the great majority of professional economists do not support its return. A good simple explanation of this point is here: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/08/why-the-gold-standard-is-the-worlds-worst-economic-idea-in-2-charts/261552/ . You'll see that the article specifically notes that "exactly zero economists endorsed the idea" in a poll carried out at that time, and the situation has not changed in the intervening two years. It is notable that the two most prominent advocates of a gold standard in the USA are an obstetrician and an ophthalmologist: neither has any economic training. RomanSpa (talk) 08:20, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Are there any sources on why it's considered acceptable in gold standard economies for there not to be a direct 1:1 correspondence between the paper currency and the precious metal represented? It seems like there would be a solid legal basis for seeing anything else as fraud on the part of the issuing bank. Evan (talk&#124;contribs) 03:08, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The problem that the OP describes actually happened, but at the level of nations rather than individuals. When every nation was on the gold standard, it was essential for a nation to have sufficient gold reserves to back its currency.  But starting in the 1920s, as economies expanded, a worldwide gold shortage developed, and nations with weaker economies experienced a steady outflow of gold, until eventually their reserves were insufficient and they were forced, one after another, to abandon the gold standard. Looie496 (talk) 13:52, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

How did Ireland become christian before Britain?
It seems to run counter to logic because Ireland is further away from mainland Europe and the Roman Empire from which christianity spread to the rest of Europe. Also Ireland was never conquered by the Roman Empire while Britain was. It seems logical that Britain would become christian first, then spread westward to the Irish isles. ScienceApe (talk) 19:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * On what basis are you assuming that Ireland become Christian before Britain? The late Romano-British were certainly mostly Christians. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:22, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * [edit conflict] In fact, Christianity did reach Britain before it reached Ireland. St. Patrick was British.  See Romano-British culture.  Unlike Ireland, however, most of Britain experienced conquest by the pagan Anglo-Saxons, who drove the mostly Christian Britons into pockets in Cornwall, Wales, Cumbria, and Strathclyde. Marco polo (talk) 19:23, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * But it says over here, [] that irish missionaries sent from Iona, converted many Picts. Also I recall reading that the runic alphabet was replaced by the latin alphabet due to the influence of irish missionaries. ScienceApe (talk) 19:59, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Also it says over here, Anglo-Saxon Christianity, "The history of Christianity in England from the Roman departure to the Norman Conquest is often told as one of conflict between the Celtic Christianity spread by the Irish mission, and Roman Christianity brought across by Augustine of Canterbury." ScienceApe (talk) 20:04, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Briefly: the Romano-British became Christian when Christianity became the state religion of the Roman empire. The Picts, beyond the frontiers of the empire, did not. Neither did the English, who had not yet settled in Britain. Ireland was converted by Romano-British missions, including that of St Patrick, in late Roman and early post-Roman times. After the Romans left, the English, who were pagan, gradually took control of what's now England over the course of a couple of centuries. The Welsh, the remnant of the Romano-Britons, were in no position to convert them because they were at war with them, so the conversion of pagans in Britain was mostly left to the Irish, until the Pope sent Augustine on a special mission to convert the English. --Nicknack009 (talk) 20:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Yup - though 'English' is an anachronism in this context. 'Anglo-Saxons' it the preferred term (though even that is a simplification). AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:24, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Our article Celtic Christianity gives an overview. Alansplodge (talk) 21:23, 5 May 2014 (UTC)