Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2018 April 20

= April 20 =

Julian’s Beard-Hater: was it a chicken or a goose?
In Julian’s Misopogon, he laments that when he went to a temple expecting a real good show of proper Roman religious practice, he found only a single priest with a single animal to sacrifice. Wikipedia and wiki source contradict: was it a chicken or was it a goose? 2601:1C1:8100:900:2C1D:E533:7C49:ECCE (talk) 04:09, 20 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Where does Wikipedia say it was a chicken? The original Greek uses the word "χήνα", which as far as I can tell, has always meant "goose". Someguy1221 (talk) 06:21, 20 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Looking at Misopogon, I don't see mention of any birds, but the corresponding Wikisource item mentions a goose. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:17, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Unless it was a churkendoose. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:18, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * There's an article which could do with some love, if anyone is bored. Alansplodge (talk) 09:38, 20 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I've moved the following item by 2600:387 to here, and made a link. It was posted in the section for a different question, but appears to belong here. --69.159.62.113 (talk) 22:43, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia.org/wiki/Antioch mentions the chicken instead of a goose. There may have been others I’m forgetting 2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:9E (talk) 22:28, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

The face of Medieval Europe?
I was playing Medieval: Total War and it's got me wondering which culture, or Kingdom, best represented the Medieval Era of Europe? Asking this definitely sounds too broad of a question but if this helps to narrow down the criteria, which kingdom overall made the most significant impact on history, from the early to late ages?--Arima (talk) 09:48, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * When in the Middle Ages are you looking for? That's basically a 1000 year period of history which cannot really be captured by any one single state during the whole time period.  If you can narrow down when you are looking for, we can possibly point to certain dominant societies, cultures, and states.  -- Jayron 32 10:49, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Charlemagne, King of the Franks represented the Early Middle Ages. The Byzantines called the knights from European nations Frankish knights. Sleigh (talk) 11:19, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed; the Frankish Empire was so pervasive at the time, that the Greek-speaking eastern Mediterranean called the Crusader States the Frankokratia (government of the Franks), even though many of them were not actually Franks. That only applies to the early-middle parts of the middle ages.  By the late middle ages, the Franks ceased to be a real thing, and successor states (the Lowlands, Burgundy, France, Germany/Holy Roman Empire) were now in that place.  -- Jayron 32 13:24, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I would also say that everything in the central and late Middle Ages is a reaction to Charlemagne's Frankish Empire, but that is a pretty extreme bias towards western Europe. But Charlemagne himself was trying to recreate the Roman Empire, which long predated him and long outlived him in the east in the Byzantine Empire. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:26, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your answers, everyone. So the Franks were the most influential kingdom up until the High Middle Ages. So then which Kingdom, or Kingdoms, became the most influential during the Late Middle Ages?--Arima (talk) 21:50, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Possibly none. The Late Middle Ages (c. 1250-1500) partly coincide with the Italian Renaissance. Several of the key developments of the era either begin in the Italian city-states or involve their trade networks and colonies. The Republic of Florence probably had more impact on European cultures than most kingdoms of the era. Dimadick (talk) 11:22, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Echoing much of what's said above. And bear in mind that the 'glory' of Charlemagne's reign really didn't much outlive Charlemagne.

If you really pushed me, I'd say the Byzantine empire. For Christendom, Byzantium influenced a lot of thinking. The early part of the decline (Battle of Manzikert, etc) arguably precipitated the Crusades, an idea that dominated foreign policy in Europe for several hundred years. Its influence can be seen popping up all over the place, on things as seemingly random as Caernarfon castle. Its utter destruction, ironically by crusading armies, was a huge own goal that opened the east of Europe to threat of Muslim encroachment - a lot of people are surprised to find that the Ottomans got as far west as Vienna as late as 1683.

And of course the schism in Christianity between Rome and the eastern Christians preoccupied Popes and theologians. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Jewish wedding
I have been reading a recent X-Men comic, and I got confused with something. Kitty Pryde is a jew, her father had died some time ago, and she's about to get married. So she said to her mother "Since dad can't walk me down the aisle, will you?". And her mother replies "That's a father's job. Or, at least, a man's". What? Aren't both parents supposed to escort the bride to the chuppah in a Jewish wedding? Or, in this case, shouldn't it be obvious that her mother would do it, without any issues about it? Am I missing something here? Cambalachero (talk) 14:02, 20 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I can't judge the accuracy of these articles based on this Google search, but it appears that 3 websites all say that the bride's parents escort her. I think your own source may have confused Jewish practice and Christian practice. In Christian weddings, the father walks his daughter down the aisle. On the other hand, it is possible that the family is half-Jewish/half-Christian, but behaves like a Christian family with an ethnic Jewish identity. Or maybe, the author of the X-Men comic has not done his/her research on Jewish weddings. SSS (talk) 15:59, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Per SuperSuperSmarty, I don't think an X-Men Comic qualifies as a reliable source under most definitions of the term "reliable", especially with regards to Jewish wedding practices. -- Jayron 32 16:02, 20 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Well, of course it does not. A work of fiction is only a reliable source about its own plot. The question was if this was indeed a mistake, or if it was following some jewish traditions that I was not aware of (seems to be the first case). In any case, I hope they use a badly researched jewish wedding and not a christian wedding, that would be an even worse mistake. Cambalachero (talk) 17:59, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Strict adherence to the thing about parents would mean that a daughter whose mother and/or father has died could never get married. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:40, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * As is common in ref desk discussions, there is an applicable Wikipedia article, Jewish wedding, which people do not mention for some reason. The fact is that the issue of who accompanies the bride down the aisle to the chuppah is a matter of tradition in various local Orthodox Jewish communities. It is not a matter of Jewish law, or Halachah. In some communities, it is four people: the mother of the bride and groom, and the father of the bride and groom who play that traditional role. In other communities, it may be only the bride's parents who do so. In other communities, it is "the father of the bride". If anyone in that role is deceased, incapacitated or unwilling, adjustments are made and the wedding proceeds. Here is an applicable link. The notion that the death of a parent could prevent a Jewish wedding is absurd and offensive, . Please refrain from your bizzare and uninformed speculations in the future. Use (or set up) a Facebook page (or other social media page) for your speculative flights of fancy. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  01:07, 21 April 2018 (UTC)


 * That's what I get for taking the OP at his word. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:11, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * WTF????? Why on earth are you blaming the OP for your own dumb comments? The OP never claimed that it was a Jewish custom. They were specifically asking if it was a custom that they weren't aware of. How can the OP be at fault when you made a dumb comment based on nothing that anyone has said? Nil Einne (talk) 10:59, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Take a chill pill, Nil. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:27, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABaseball_Bugs&type=revision&diff=837650853&oldid=835599884]. I won't be addressing you directly further in this thread since it seems clear you have nothing useful to add. Nil Einne (talk) 04:10, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * To be fair to Baseball Bugs, I think Cullen328 and Nil Einne have both misinterpreted his comments.
 * In saying "Strict adherence to the thing about parents would mean that a daughter whose mother and/or father has died could never get married.", BB was clearly (to me) making a reductio ad absurdum argument that the 'one or both parents' stipulation could not be an absolute requirement, quite the opposite of "speculating that the death of a parent could prevent a Jewish wedding . . . ."
 * In saying "That's what I get for taking the OP at his word.", BB clearly (to me) meant that by thus arguing against the OP's "Aren't both parents supposed to escort the bride . . . ." he had (wrongly in his and my view) incurred Cullen328's wrath, not that he was blaming the OP for anything as Nil Einne suggests.
 * I myself frequently disagree with BB's stances and conduct (much more often that I voice, because as an IP editor I try to keep out of in-house disputes), but in this instance I think he was being at worst a little flip (while discussing an X-Men comic, let us remember), and that Cullen328 and Nil Einne have misunderstood and overreacted. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.218.14.51 (talk) 16:36, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You've got it. And my main mistake was in not putting my comments in small print. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:58, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you've misunderstood. I was never trying to claim that Cullen328's comment was fair. All I was trying to say is that if Cullen328's comments were fair, BB was quite wrong to blame the OP from them. (I did call them 'dumb comments', that was because I thought they were acknowledging they made no sense but were saying that it was because they took something the OP said on good faith but it turns out the OP was wrong. I'm confused from the followup what they're trying to say now.) I don't give a damn about the dispute between Cullen328 and BB. I do give a damn about BB blaming the OP for something which had nothing to do with them. BB explicitly said 'what I get for taking the OP at his word' which implies something the OP said somehow mislead them or was wrong. The OP did not give 'any word' to BB that BB took. The OP never claimed that their understanding was absolute nor did they say anything which really had much relevance to BB's comment. Let me repeat what I said in my first post, the OP simple asked a question, no where did they suggest that the practice or their understanding was correct. They seemed to be recognising that the existence of a normal practice doesn't preclude the possibility that there is some other practice in certain communities. (This was one way their understanding of normal practice could be correct, but so could the work of fiction in question.) Or alternatively although both parents walk with the bride, it was also the norm that the father's role was considered a key part and therefore the mother could not walk down without the father i.e. that their understanding of normal practice was correct but incomplete, although this also seemed somewhat unlikely given the wording in the comic. In doing so, they also implied that it seemed more likely that in event both parents couldn't do it, it would be acceptable for the mother alone to do it. They said since it's normal for both parents to do it, shouldn't the mother alone be able to do it when the father is unable to ('Or, in this case, shouldn't it be obvious that her mother would do it, without any issues about it'), so why was this not allowed in this fictional work? (Was the fictional work simply wrong, or was it following a tradition they were not aware of?) In other words, nowhere did they imply that the practice was so fixed that in the event it couldn't be followed, the wedding could be cancelled, quite the opposite. They explicitly acknowledged the possibility the wedding would go through somehow whether the mother doing it by herself or no one doing it, or not really raised but someone else. (The former being more likely, as the later seemed more likely to arise in different scenarios such some tradition where both parents didn't walk.) Just like if it's the norm for the father to do it, it would still go ahead whether with the mother, no one (as apparently in the comic), or someone else walking with the bride. Everyone else in this thread except BB already knew the wedding would go through somehow. The possibility the wedding just couldn't happen was never considered by anyone except BB, perhaps because to anyone with even a modicum of understanding of human culture, it's a weird suggestion. (This is not to deny the death of a father can't make marriages could difficult in some cultures, but that's normally more to do with the marriage traditions and norms than with the wedding ceremony.) If BB said something because they misunderstood what the OP said, or because they were trying to make a point from what the OP said (correctly understood or not), this is on BB, it is not because they were taking the OP at their word but the OP was wrong. If BB wants to stand by what they said because they feel they were making a relevant point, they should say that but it does not involve the OP having been wrong. If BB had wanted to say they made a mistake, they should have said that and not brought up the OP. The OP is not responsible. Let me repeat I don't give a damn about the dispute between Cullen328 and BB and I am not saying Cullen328's comments on BB were fair. All I am saying is that BB's comments and their relevance or unrelevance, offensive or unoffensiveness is on BB. And yes I do think this is a big deal since I hate it when people blame someone for something which had nothing to do with them and I still don't see any way to interpret BB's second reply other than as an implication the OP said something which BB took on good faith, but turns out the OP was wrong. Nil Einne (talk) 05:33, 22 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Dispute over BB's comments aside, our article was linked by the OP themselves. Nil Einne (talk) 04:19, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Instead of taking a chill pill, Nil, you seem to have taken a caffeine pill. Or maybe several of them. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:40, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I had read the article, and it says "In many Orthodox Jewish communities...". That suggests that it may not be an universal tradition among jews, but just a tradition of a specific group. Or not, that's something I guessed from the article's wording, which may be inaccurate or incomplete (the article is far from being a featured or good article). That's why I was asking. I did not expect my question to start all this trouble, so we may drop this issue here. Cambalachero (talk) 22:14, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Hippocrates cum gentibus
I’m reading his on airs, waters, places on wiki source. He seems preoccupied with semen. (Its hard to tellll his meaning on matters sexual in Aphorisms; the translation seems labored and circumlocutory.) Did he have firsthand knowledge of the semen of various peoples? Did ancient medicine concern itself with semen as often as Hippocrates did?2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:9E (talk) 23:18, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hippocrates, I don't know. But the Ancients in general, oh yes. "Concepts on the role of the semen in human reproduction date back into antiquity. Indeed, there is a range of information available about the semen reported by practitioners from ancient times." (On the Origins of the Semen Analysis: A Close Relationship with the History of the Reproductive Medicine. J Hum Reprod Sci. 2017 Oct-Dec; 10(4): 242–255. doi: 10.4103/jhrs.JHRS_97_17) Carbon Caryatid (talk) 23:32, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Hippocrates on the pudendum
On Airs, Waters, Places: I wonder if someone may give an interpretation of this passage.

"Calculi do not form so readily in women, for in them the urine is easily expelled, neither do they rub the pudendum with their hands, nor handle the passage like males, for the urethra in women opens directly into the pudendum, which is not the case with men, neither in them is the urethra so wide,..."

Is this passage saying that women don't masturbate? Or simply that they don't need to use their hands while urinating? 2601:1C1:8100:900:C16E:C084:52E8:11D6 (talk) 17:52, 21 April 2018 (UTC)