Humanities desk
< September 13	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 15 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

September 14

Yonic Mary

I don't see an article depictions of Mary, I was curious about something. I've seen art featuring her in a vulva-shaped form. I don't know how satirical that is though, since it's a perfectly natural kind of symbolism to go for. I know Jesus' crucifixion-erection was something Christian artists did back in the day, but is this kind of Mary something we've seen in art history? Temerarius (talk) 03:09, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

possibly Jezebel from Thyatira?.King Ahab's wife was famous for her paintings..also Magdalene (nude scene) from Life of Brian..or Panthera (Jesus's father)..see also Elton John's comment on Jesus..and Jesus Is Magic.. Gfigs (talk) 03:43, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which Mary? Mary, mother of Jesus#In art has a gallery. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:36, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Temerarius. Do you mean the Vesica piscis? According to that article "When arranged so that the lens is placed vertically, and used to depict a halo or aureola, it represents divine glory."--Shantavira|^{feed me}

The only case I'm aware of is the Stella Maris statue sculpted in 1999 by Sardinian artist Maria Scanu, located in Santa Teresa Gallura on Sardinia. It has recently sparked discussion on social media and become the butt of jokes,^[1] but there are no indications that any association with a vulva was intentional. --Lambiam 08:31, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The shape that Mary is often pictured in is called an mandorla and as far as I can tell, has no connections to genitalia of any kind. The Wikipedia article briefly describes its origins and iconography. --Jayron 32 18:27, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you possibly referring to the (in)famous statue by Maria Scanu that's been making the internet rounds the last while? Images here. Matt Deres (talk) 18:34, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That, and some intentional jokey ones like this: https://i.redd.it/5v0n54xqycn71.jpg and I found this Byzantine-looking one that might be a vagina, but it's a big stretch: https://quiesincaelis.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/mandorla.jpg Temerarius (talk) 22:41, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why did testudo formations not attach shields to the helmets?

A bit like the (unfortunately extremely unfashionable here) umbrella hat but square or slightly rectangular, good enough make freeing up the roof shielding hands worthwhile and no need for collapsability. Did anyone try this? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:50, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those shields weighed about 10kg (22lb) [2] so a bit heavier than an umbrella. If the formation broke, as at the Battle of Strasbourg [3], the infantry would be required to fight hand-to-hand, so probably having a four-foot long plywood board strapped to your head might be something of an encumbrance in that situation. Alansplodge (talk) 16:18, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It could be 2 feet wide since it doesn't have to be your front shield anymore. Maybe add shoulder supports to share weight with the neck without hindering head turning too much, if tech was able to mass produce that back then. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:21, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arrows tend to fall diagonally rather than straight down (see projectile motion), so in the same way that your umbrella hat won't keep your body dry on a windy day, a two-foot shield-hat wouldn't protect your body from missiles, unless you packed the ranks like rail commuters at rush hour, which would inhibit their fighting capability somewhat. Alansplodge (talk) 12:08, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which is what they're doing here (with the front shields protecting the rest of the diagonal except maybe the bottom of the exposed bottom ~cubit, maybe for weight reasons). They were willing to march and fight inhibited like that as testudo formation says (even having outside men awkwardly walk sideways or backwards when the side or rear was attacked) but maybe the impracticality of a ~10 pound (even sans hitting bump) hat was obvious enough in military circles that it was harrumphed before the written records stage, as Jayron assumes. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:01, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but when that formation was no longer required, they could use their shields as actual shields, instead of having to wear an awkward hat all day. The fact is that the greatest military minds of the Roman Empire over four centuries seem never to have entertained the idea, a truth that no further argument will alter. Alansplodge (talk) 11:34, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I found out they marched with ~41 kg of stuff and a logistical headache of mules, it's no wonder they didn't add 5 kg more. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:31, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You do know that there aren't always going to be reliable sources or further reading for every wild "why didn't..." question that pops into your head, right? Just because you have a thought, doesn't mean it's already been answered. You can read about the testudo formation to learn more about its history and theory behind it, but that doesn't mean that there exists actual answers for questions like "why didn't they wear umbrella hats" or whatever. Not every insanely off-the-wall question you have has sources we can provide answers for. It would help if you used some discretion in which sorts of questions you sought additional resources to answer, and which you realize don't necessarily have such resources. --Jayron 32 18:23, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[Edit Conflict] I'm no expert in modern or historically re-enacted combat (though I know people who are, including my Father), but I'd think that, as Alansplodge suggests above, such a device would be too heavy if it were to double as a normal shield, too cumbersome in the fast-flowing action of a battlefield if it was specialised headgear, too expensive for something very liable to be lost and not easily replaced (since dead opponents wouldn't have them to be looted), and an unwanted extra weight for an individual to yomp around or an additional logistical headache for supply waggons to carry and distribute.

The established tactic of having the second rank shield both the first and themselves, as shown in the picture, worked well enough, so why overcomplicate things? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.67.3 (talk) 18:33, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is a great idea, but a propeller beanie would have given them the high ground advantage. Temerarius (talk) 22:43, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's a ridiculous suggestion. Leonardo da Vinci would not invent the propellor beanie until hundreds of years later. They would have had to rely on Archimedes screw top hats, which would have been too heavy for practical battlefield use. Girth Summit _(blether) 23:11, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as Archimedes found out too late in the Battle of Syracuse, these turned out to be impractical. --Lambiam 07:36, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Enlightenment turned us away from truth (?)

Someone linked to this tweet from the recently deceased comedian Norm Macdonald as an example of Macdonald's wisdom outside of the comedy area. To save you a click, it says:

The Enlightenment turned us away from truth and toward a darkling weakening horizon, sad and grey to see. The afterglow of Christianity is near gone now, and a stygian silence lurks in wait.

What does he mean by that? It uses fancy words like "darkling" and "stygian" so it must be profound (heh), but I can't tell what thought it is trying to convey. Thanks. 2602:24A:DE47:B8E0:1B43:29FD:A863:33CA (talk) 21:18, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know nothing about the man himself or his politics, but to me it reads like 'All this new-fangled rational thought stuff has led us away from a culturally mandated belief in The One Great Truth, which was comforting, and we will likely regret leaving it behind'. Girth Summit _(blether) 23:16, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) OP, please see WP:NOTAFORUM, which applies to these reference desks as much as any other page on this project: what you are asking for is outright speculation about what Macdonald intended with this comment, and that's just not something we are here to provide. If we had a source, or even content in Macdonald's WP article (or another) which we could point you to for elucidation, we would, but we're not in a position on this site to make our best guess; I would suggest Reddit for engagement on such a topic.

So the best we can do for you is try to provide some context for you that may help you to arrive at your own conclusions about what Macdonald meant. By way of limited speculation to provide the starting platform for that context, I will go only so far as saying that, assuming this tweet is genuine and considering it's rather pointed comment about Christianity, Macdonald may have been a very conservatively religious individual, though I am not sure that is something I think was well known about him: it certainly is not reflected in our article on him. That said, there is some connection in that he apparently (according to our article) cited Leo Tolstoy as an influence on his material--Tolstoy was a deeply religious person himself, and a believer in universal love and pacifism: he was deeply critical of states, particularly modern Christian states, for their refusal to obey what he saw as an absolute commandment from Christ to abjure physical violence in every form. However, Tolstoy was not a reactionary to the modern order in every respect and his beliefs (which are part of an ideological and religious traditions which helped to form what we now call nonviolent resistance), are not typically seen as anti-Enlightenment in a broad sense: indeed they share a lot of principles of universalism and humanism which scholars generally regard as having germinated in the Enlightenment. Still, the Tolstoy reference is all I see in Macdonald's article which points towards strong religious views.

I can also say, by way of providing further context here, that the Enlightenment, per its name, is often seen as doing the opposite of what Macdonald claims it did in that tweet: that is to say, the standard view in western cultural tradition is that the Enlightenment brought reason, clarity, and increased freedom of thought following a benighted era of religious and political repression and dogmatism (particularly in continental Europe, but also elsewhere in the world, and also particularly from the fourth to sixteenth centuries, but also in a more general sense). However, the descriptors that Macdonald uses in that tweet are not unheard of/without historical precedent: there is a long tradition of criticism of certain rationalist enlightenment values, vocalized in particular by a number of religious figures, that has argued at various points in the last two centuries that the Enlightenment diverted humanity away from some form of natural law/natural order as ordained by God, and that in a world devoid of such restraints, humankind's institutions would turn increasingly towards forms devoid of humanity and good moral character. I am loathe to personally attribute such beliefs to Macdonald on the basis of one comment (even if it does seem generally and directly supportive of this view), but reading up on those traditions may not be a bad place to start if you are curious enough about Macdonald's sentiments to place them in their wider historical context.

I'll put together a reading list of additional sources later when I have more time if you are interested in this subject, but to start with, Steven Pinker has written a book on the subject of the influence of the enlightenment on modern structures and views titled Enlightenment Now; I have not had the time to read it yet, but based on comments he has made in public speaking engagements while promoting it (and other public discussions he's had on the topic in the past), I suspect large portions of the initial chapters would be given over to discussing exactly these views in an empirical light, so probably not the worst place to start. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 23:21, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some further commentary in the same general vein (in this case the relative value and qualities of faith vs. science specifically) in Macdonald's own words. I won't provide my own views on his interpretations or the quality of evidence presented in his reasoning (as that would not be appropriate under NOTAFORUM, WP:OR, or WP:BLP), but it I think I can fairly summarize it as a view that is skeptical of formal/strict rationalism and the tradition of modern empirical science. This would indeed seem to dovetail with the tweet, since the scientific revolution trending towards the formal method is considered a major component of the Enlightenment. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 01:20, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing inappropriate in the question. It does not ask for an opinion, but for an explanation of an obscure text. Without any knowledge of Macdonald, who I've never heard of, it is clear from the tweet that its author is a fundamentalist Christian who believes science is hiding a deeper truth, so that we'd be better off without it. --Lambiam 07:23, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lambiam, yeah, you are right, Macdonald (a comedian) was apparently a committed Christian. That threw me because his most famous joke (the one about the moth, for those familiar), when he tells it,[4] sounds like a Woody Allen-ish take on existentialism. I was unfamiliar with Macdonald before his death from cancer made the news. Sometime earlier he was known to disparage the idea of a battle with cancer. He said something like "if you die from cancer, the cancer in your body dies at the exact same instant you do. That is not losing a battle, that is a draw". Some of his obituaries mentioned this quote.

Snow, per Lambiam, this question also seemed ok to me because asking for explanations of literary quotes etc. is a usual thing on the humanities desk. 2601:648:8200:970:0:0:0:C023 (talk) 03:10, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This contemporary analysis might help. Oddly enough, a heckler had already tied his death to the moth joke. Too soon? InedibleHulk (talk) 11:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More generally, recently and pseudopolitically, "Norm saw differently, and therefore more, than secular man. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:26, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A nominally friendly atheist took this to signify, among the aforementioned things, Norm was sad. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:44, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]