Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2013 May 18

= May 18 =

Is an allegedly terrible historical figure known mainly from later writing a "villain"?
Take Sergius III. Apparently, most or all contemporary records were destroyed when he was banished, and the Game of Thrones-like character we have today may be an invention, and almost certainly embellished by his enemies and their descendants (and uninvolved people who just like a good whoring and murder story, centuries later).

Would it be fair to classify him as a villain, in the literary sense, notwithstanding how his reign actually went down? Judging from the last millenium, we probably won't be clearer on the truth of it anytime soon. But we certainly know the general consensus of historical writers is that he was not a good man or pope, perhaps even the worst.

Thanks for considering. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:45, 18 May 2013 (UTC)


 * This seems to be a request for random personal opinions rather than a request for information, and therefore not suitable for the Reference desk to deal with. (Note:  I have edited your post to disambiguate the link.) Looie496 (talk) 03:51, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a request for opinions from language experts (or afficionados, anyway) on whether a word applies to a certain type of person, preferably with something to vouch for those opinions. Seems the place to me. I appreciate you fixing the disambig, but I've piped it. I only call the current pope "Pope". InedibleHulk (talk) 03:55, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Louie is correct. This is not a request for the meaning or connotation or etymology of the word villain.  It is a request for our opinion as to whether Sergius was a villain.  We can't say.  The OP could ask at the humanities desk whether any notable scholars have called him a villain, in which case he might as well just search for the words at google books or scholar. We do not need to and should not give our opinions here. μηδείς (talk) 05:21, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * He was an example. If I wanted to ask if Sergius III is a villain, I'd have used his name in the title. The question is about people like him, who exist mainly in stories written many years later. There are no villains in real life, but can the word apply to his persona in literature, like it would for a fictional character, or is it strictly for storybooks? If you don't want to answer, ignore it. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:10, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind. I've found the answer. Delete this if you should. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC)


 * You know, despite the general unhelpfulness above, this is actually a pretty good question. There are lots of issues with historical sources being written more like literature. And certainly we can talk about different schools of historiography and how they treat the history of the Papacy. Personally I would say no, it is not fair to classify him as a villain, because he was a real person and not a literary character. But you could definitely trace how real people are treated as if they are fictional in historical writing. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:46, 18 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Saying there are no real villains in real life only follows if you define that word as referring only to literary characters; but that's definitely not the original usage, it's only been around since the 19th century, see the etymology. On the other hand, yes, historical writing does often have a literary style, and descriptions can come across as vividly as literature. μηδείς (talk) 19:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, okay. Problem solved then, Sergius III was not a villain. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:43, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

What does Maryann chant?
Can anybody tell me the Greek-sounding words Maryann chants during the Bacchan revel in episode six of season two of True Blood? If so, please answer here, where I originally placed this question on the Entertainment Desk. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 21:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Found the answer myself at You Tube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usEklHkugp4. μηδείς (talk) 21:41, 18 May 2013 (UTC)