From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Humanities desk
< March 19	<< Feb | March | Apr >>	March 21 >

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

Contents 1 March 20 1.1 Art reference for ethnic groups. 1.2 The word " yellow or yeller" orginate? 1.3 poetry 1.4 Jerome's De Viris Illustribus Chapter 80 1.5 1956 baby deaths 1.6 English speaking priests in Pesaro 1.7 Silence as discourse

[edit] March 20

[edit] Art reference for ethnic groups.

I'd like to get some reference photos (or paintings, or drawings, for that matter) for ethnic groups other than English, which all the characters are coming out as. Is there a good resource for this? Many of the ethnic group articles have a montage at the top of them, but I was wondering if there's a resource especially designed as an artist's reference. grendel|khan 03:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite understand the question. What are you looking for? If you want guidelines for the montages, there aren't any currently but I've proposed some at Template talk:Infobox Ethnic group#Portrait guidelines.--Pharos 05:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I've been working with an artist, and all her pictures of people come out looking like English folk. She was looking for references so she could draw people who didn't look English. Guidelines describing what makes English people look English, and what makes other ethnic groups look like other ethnic groups, would be much appreciated, but I doubt anything like that exists. grendel|khan 13:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... I think I'm a bit skeptical that the English would really look very different from, say, Frenchmen. Anyway, if she feels that the faces of her drawings all look the same, I would suggest working more from models (either actual models or photographs); just working from real-life may help her get around any preconceived notions she may have drawing generic faces.--Pharos 15:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

How about Paul Gauguin's Tahitian images ? [1]. StuRat 13:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Pick the name of some ethnic group from List of ethnic groups, for example Abenaki, or Zuni, type it in the search box of Google Images, press "Search Images", et voilà.  --Lambiam^Talk 14:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I remember stumbling upon this[2] website a while ago. While their ethnology is a bit... dodgy, it does catalogue a variety of persons of different ethnicity. 194.80.32.12 21:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The word " yellow or yeller" orginate?

One of my college friend told me that to call somebody yellow originate from when the Chinese people where here (U.S.A) during the railroad era; they use that word in reference to the Chinese men- whom they think isn't manly. Thats how that word become an insult. But my husband doesn't agree with me. He say that it just originate from chicken and have nothing to with anything else. But I don't think Chicken is yellow except when they are chicks. So I would like to know how's that word become an insult. Thanks Amy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.188.195.32 (talk) 05:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

Amy, there is some obvious confusion here. The page on the Yellow Peril will give some information on the origin and application of the racist term. However, there is also a quite separate usage of the word 'yellow'. It has long been employed, along with 'chicken', to denote cowardice, and in this context has nothing whatsoever to do with Chinese people. Clio the Muse 06:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It has to do with the character of the individual's liver: for reading the liver, see hepatoscopy. The liver was the seat of passions in Antiquity. "Yellow" is akin to "lily-livered." Nothing Chinese about it.--06:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The word "yellow" to denote cowardice or fear has been documented as early as 100 AD, in the works of Galen. It predates the European colonization of the United States by well over 1,400 years. --Charlene 07:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Careful, there. "Yellow" is a word in English, which did not exist in 100 AD. This sort of thing does not necessarily carry over from one language to another. Anyone got an OED handy, or access to OED Online, to see what date it gives for the first use of "yellow" meaning cowardly in English? --Anonymous, March 20, 2007, 22:38 (UTC).

The link between the colour yellow and notions of treachery and cowardice was well-established by the Middle Ages. Judas Iscariot is often depicted wearing yellow robes, and in France the houses of traitors were painted yellow. I have not been able to determine the specific origins of this association. Clio the Muse 00:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

This is interesting: The first reference for "yellow" meaning "cowardly" in the OED is from a 1856 book by P.T. Barnum. The dictionary does not say how the color came to be associated with cowardice. Before the mid-19th century, "yellow" meant "jealous." -- Mwalcoff 02:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Almost any story you hear about a word having racist origins turns out to be false: "handicap," "picnic," "yellow," etc. One exception is "gyp," which comes from "gypsy." -- Mwalcoff 22:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Just curious, what were the supposed yet false racist origins of "handicap" and "picnic"? I'd never heard anyone claiming them to have racist origins. In fact in reading those two words, though I'm deperately trying, I can't seem to even loosely associate them with any minority group. Loomis 01:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

See [3] and [4] -- Mwalcoff 01:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Once we're on the subject of false etymologies, I'd add the false notion that the name for the sport of "GOLF" originated from the sexist acronym "Gentleman Only, Ladies Forbidden". Another ridiculously false sexist etymolgy is the notion, believed by surprisingly many, that the word "history" is a contraction of "his-story" (as opposed to "her-story"), when in fact its true Greek origins have absolutely nothing to do with gender. Loomis 02:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I have always seen "his-story" and "her-story" as clever puns, not as perceived actual etymologies. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 15:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Not only is that a false etymology, but the word "story" is actually a shortened form of the older word "history".  --Lambiam^Talk 15:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

They may indeed be mere clever puns, yet many radical feminists go so far as insisting that the word be "re-spelled" as "hystory". If it's indeed just a clever pun or joke, are these particular womyn in on the joke? Loomis 17:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] poetry

I remember a poem of which I have recollection of only two lines. The poem is about smugglers and the two lines, which may not be correct, but have the essence of meening are; "Brandy for the parson, baccy for the clerk" and Face the wall my darling, while the gentlemen go by". Can anyony enlighten me about the author and the name of the poem? Regards to all,

Michael L. Pascoe. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Revdmike (talk • contribs) 09:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

It's A Smugglers' Song by Rudyard Kipling. The poem can be read here (scroll to the bottom of the page). ---Sluzzelin talk 09:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC) Oh, and it should be "Watch the wall, my darling, while the Gentlemen go by!" ---Sluzzelin talk 09:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

And here it is on its own! [5] Wonderful stuff. It appears at the end of Hal o' the Draft, one of the prose items in Puck of Pook's Hill. I have to say, though, much as I love them personally-especially the exhilarating Mandalay-Kipling's poems and songs are not among the best of his work. He is, rather, one of the great prose artists of the English language, deeply sensitive to the rhythms of everyday speech. His short stories and novels are tremendously entertaining and insightful. For far too long his reputation as a writer has been sullied by his association with British imperialism. But with the baggage of history slowly being discarded, he is at last beginning to emerge as one of the foremost craftsmen of English letters. Clio the Muse 10:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jerome's De Viris Illustribus Chapter 80

Chapter 80 of Jerome's De Viris Illustribus says Chapter 80 Firmianus (Lactantius): Firmianus, known also as Lactantius. In Latin I believe it reads: Firmianus qui et Lactantius -- close to meaning of ...who (or which) is also.... The question: is the Latin meaning closer to "which is also" or would it be "whom is also"? Would the two names of "Firmianus" and "Lactantius" be considered one and the same. From those words it appears this way. Or could it be that "Lactantius" is a surname (i.e. family last name) and "Firmianus" is a First Name (i.e. given name at birth). --Doug ^talk 10:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

As you can see in our article Lactantius, "Lactantius" is the cognomen of Lucius Cae(ci)lius Firmianus Lactantius. ("Lactantius" is also listed in the list of Roman cognomina.) The antecedent of who (or which) is a human being, so who is the usual English relative pronoun here. The meaning is appropriately captured by the English translation quoted.  --Lambiam^Talk 13:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The chapter heading "Firmianus (Lactantius)" is true to how Jerome puts it. He basically says, "Firmianus, a.k.a. Lactantius" (the omitted verb is not "is," but "is called," or, as in the English translation "is known as"). While the writer can be & is sometimes correctly referred to as Lactantius Firmianus, Jerome would not seem to be prescribing this, but simply letting his readers know that this is the author often known as Lactantius. ("Whom is also" is grammatically impossible. I don't understand how your proposed translations relate to the various interpretations you think the words might bear. As Lambiam says, the antecedent would seem to be the human being, not the name, if the latter is what you're suggesting with "which.") Wareh 14:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for these great answers. Now I understand that the heading "Firmianus (Lactantius)" is true to how Jerome puts it. I thought that was the case. The wording "is called" makes perfect sense to me. I was told otherwise, so I just wanted to get this clear. Thanks again for the help. I have a handle on it now. The name known by or cognomen also makes sense. I notice in the article cognomen they use for an example my friend "Scipio". Scipio (plural, Scipiones) is a Roman cognomen used by a branch of the Cornelii family. Cornelius (fem. Cornelia) was the nomen of the patrician gens Cornelia, one of the important families of Ancient Rome. This is all beginning to make perfect sense to me and is coming together. I then assume some wording like Firmianus the rhetorician, surnamed Lactantius would not be correct. Using the above arguments for example the Cornelii family is where the name Cornelius comes from. In the case of P. Cornelius Scipio, his family name is Cornelius however he goes by the name "Scipio" (like a nickname). So in our case Lactantius would not be a surname, but a cognomen (the name known by). This is like Robert Smyth, where Robert is called "Bob". So as a comparison "Firmianus, a.k.a. Lactantius" would be like "Robert, a.k.a. Bob"; and the surname is Smyth (an entirely different name meaning because it is the family (tribe) name like Cornelius). --Doug ^talk 21:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The comparison is not entirely correct. The classical Roman naming conventions have no clear correspondence to English naming systems. If you want to compare P. Cornelius Scipio to Robert Smyth, then the best correspondence is as follows:

• Given name: Robert / Publius
• Surname: Smyth / Cornelius Scipio

The father of "your" P. Cornelius Scipio was also a Cornelius Scipio (and in fact another Publius Cornelius Scipio; see further the Scipio-Paullus-Gracchus family tree). The Romans had nothing comparable to English nicknames like "Bob". Given someone's full name, it is not quite predictable what shorter form(s) are conventionally used; compare Tiberius Claudius Nero and Tiberius Claudius Drusus, or Titus Flavius Vespasianus and Titus Flavius Vespasianus.  --Lambiam^Talk 22:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Great information, thanks. Yes I was aware that my friend "Scipio" (famous Italian general) had a father by the same name of "Cornelius Scipio". Thanks for making that more clear. Now the real question is then: the wording of Firmianus the rhetorician, surnamed Lactantius would not be correct then, right? This is because "Lactantius" would be a cognomen, not a surname. In other words,

• Given name: Firmianus / (Lactantius)
• Surname: unknown

Would the above then be correct, since the wording used of "is called" and "also know as (a.k.a.)" and "known also as" are used? Also then am I correct in the knowledge that Jerome conveyed this as "Firmianus (Lactantius)" ; not of this wording above in bold italic that I believe to be wrong (...surnamed Lactantius)? I don't see here in Chapter 80 where Jerome says Firmianus the rhetorician. So do you believe the above bold italic to be correct or "Firmianus (Lactantius)"?--Doug ^talk 23:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

If his full name is Lucius Caelius Firmianus Lactantius, then his praenomen (given name) is Lucius, his nomen (extended family name) is Caelius, and his cognomen (closer family name) is Lactantius, and Firmianus probably shows that he (or possibly an ancestor, I'm not sure about that) was born into the Firmius extended family and adopted into the Caelii Lactantii. In modern terms, his "surname" would be Caelius Firmianus Lactantius, or any part thereof. As an example, Julius Caesar's full name was Gaius Julius Caesar, so "Julius Caesar" is his surname, but in contemporary records like Cicero's letters and speeches he's usually referred to as "Gaius Caesar" or simply "Caesar". The phrase "surnamed Lactantius" is not entirely incorrect as Lactantius is an inherited family name, but it's a bit misleading if your only point of reference is English naming practice.

The only "pet" form of a name (equivalent of "Bob" for "Robert") I'm aware of is Cicero's daughter Tullia, whom he often calls "Tulliola". --Nicknack009 01:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I somewhere remember Agrippina the Younger being called "Agrippinilla", and not just in Robert Graves's novels. --Charlene 05:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

O.K., then based on this I should re-think what I wrote about and perhaps put it this way then

• Given name: Lucius
• Surname: Firmianus / (Lactantius)

In this case then the expression and the wording of Firmianus the rhetorician, surnamed Lactantius would not be correct then, right? This is because it is implying "Firmianus" to be a first name and "Lactantius" to be a surname; two differenct entities as it is written this way. Wouldn't it be more correct to just write it as "Firmianus (Lactantius)"? The way it is written above does not indicate that "Firmianus" and "Lactantius" are basically one and the same: it indicates these as two different items. Besides Jerome himself never wrote it that way (wording of bold italic).--Doug ^talk 12:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I think using the term "surname" in connection to Roman names is anachronistic. But, as pointed out above by Nicknack009, the closest correspondence to this terminology for English names we can present for Lactantius is:

• Given name: Lucius
• Surname: Cae(ci)lius Firmianus Lactantius

We don't know enough about the person to be even certain about the gens: is it "Caelius" or "Caecilius"? In Lactantius' period the Roman naming conventions were applied much more loosely than in the ancient days of the republic, and by the lack of further information we can't be entirely certain of the respective roles and importance of the parts "Firmianus" and "Lactantius". Quoting from the introductory notice to a translation of some of Lactantius' work:

Lactantius has always held a very high place among the Christian Fathers, not only on account of the subject-matter of his writings, but also on account of the varied erudition, the sweetness of expression, and the grace and elegance of style, by which they are characterized. It appears, therefore, more remarkable that so little is known with certainty respecting his personal history. We are unable to fix with precision either the place or time of his birth, and even his name has been the subject of much discussion. It is known that he was a pupil of Arnobius, who gave lectures in rhetoric at Sicca in Africa. Hence it has been supposed that Lactantius was a native of Africa, while others have maintained that he was born in Italy, and that his birthplace probably was Firmium, on the Adriatic. He was probably born about the middle of the third century, since he is spoken of as far advanced in life about a.d. 315. He is usually denominated "Lucius Cælius Firmianus Lactantius;" but the name Cæcilius is sometimes substituted for Cælius, and it is uncertain whether Firmianus is a family name or a local [i.e. of Firmium] designation. Some have even supposed that he received the name of Lactantius from the milky softness of his style.

There is nothing wrong with using "Firmianus (Lactantius)", or, more or less following Jerome, "Firmianus (known also as Lactantius)".  --Lambiam^Talk 13:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Totally agree with you and as a matter of fact believe this to be the better way to express it. This would be the proper way to write this heading to Chapter 80 ""Firmianus (Lactantius)", or even "Firmianus (known also as Lactantius)" ; however what I am concerned about is that this wording misrepresents Jerome's intended heading: Firmianus the rhetorician, surnamed Lactantius. I believe this bold italic to not be correct. What do you think? Below is what I suggest is correct and incorrect

• Correct: "Firmianus (Lactantius)" and "Firmianus (known also as Lactantius)"
• Incorrect: Firmianus the rhetorician, surnamed Lactantius

Need a "Third Opinion" on the above bold italic, which I do not think is the way Jerome intended it. I believe Jerome intended instead "Firmianus (a.k.a. Lactantius)". Is that right? --Doug ^talk 14:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

"Firmanius (a.k.a. Lactanius)" and "Firmanius, surnamed Lactanius" are equivalent, thought the latter is likely to be misconstrued by those who know only the secondary meaning of "surname". The primary meaning is "an added name derived from occupation or other circumstance: nickname". I agree that the former is therefore preferable, but that does not make the latter wrong. - Nunh-huh 02:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input and clarification. --Doug ^talk 16:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1956 baby deaths

i went to the ft. mcclellan military cemetary and while i was looking at the tombstones i noticed there were multiple graves belonging to babies under two months old. these babies were born in 1956 and most had died within three months of being born. i was wondering if there was some kind of plague or disease that was responsible for the deaths. why did so many babies die in this time frame?

-A Bedsole —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.116.197.194 (talk) 14:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

Maybe this has some information. meltBanana 20:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that the majority of the infant deaths there occurred in 1956, or just a few from the ones you looked at. Perhaps that particular year had some extreme climate, particularly hot days, or cold nights?

Or perhaps we are thinking about this the wrong way, maybe the instances of infant mortality remained roughly constant but that for the year of 1956 Ft. McClellan became a particularly popular burial ground? While it may sound morbid, cemetaries have to go through the same competition as any other venture does. 194.80.32.12 21:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Not military cemeteries, who in the 1950s buried military members and their dependents for free. (I believe now veterans and their spouses still theoretically have the right to be buried in military cemeteries, but the lack of land (and the fact that a substantial percentage of World War II veterans are now reaching the end of their lives) means that in practice there are limits as to how many deceased can be accommodated. --Charlene 05:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Why not talk to the military authorities responsible for the cemetery? If the cemetery contains many victims of a particular epidemic, diasaster, war, or anything else, I would certainly expect them to know about it (more so than people would here if it was a local thing) and be willing to tell you. --Anonymous, March 20, 2007, 22:42 (UTC).

Without access to the 'stats' I would suggest that perhaps this is just your mind thinking it is unlikely rather than it statistically being unlikely. Additionally I understand that some cemetaries are 'adult only', some are 'any' and some are 'child own'. It could be that if the cemetary you visited is the only one in the region that is 'both' then that could attribute the higher proportion of child-deaths as the other cemetaries don't do that type of burial. Additionally there could be an explanation based on the families involved and their viewpoint and their choice of burial type. Also as the above user notes it could be down to a business-drive by the cemetary. Whilst not very nice (the idea of '25% off burials this week' is rather horrible) I would expect it is only logical that there is some form of competition. ny156uk 23:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Ny156uk, this is a cemetery at a military site. It wouldn't have been a business - members of the military and their dependents at the time would have been buried for free. However, there may be a couple of reasons why 24.116.197.194 saw this:

• There was a huge outbreak of polio in the southern United States in 1956. Although the first vaccine was developed in 1955, it took some time for it to be produced and distributed to all Americans. Perhaps more infants died that year than in previous or subsequent years.
• It's quite common for a cemetery attached to a military base to set aside a special area for infants, and some cemeteries set aside a different "special place" every year. It may just be that the part of the cemetery the OP was in contained all the 1956 infant burials. --Charlene 04:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] English speaking priests in Pesaro

I have friends who have recently moved to Pesaro in Italy, they are without telephone or internet and have asked me to find the nearest English speaking Priest in order that they may go to confession before Easter. Can anyone please help?(82.46.84.112 19:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC))

Why don't they just go to the local church and ask around? I'm sure someone there will speak enough English to help them find an English-speaking priest in the region.--Pharos 20:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

"Perdonimi Padre, dato che ho pecco."

Attempt of English phonetic spelling: "Per-DAWN-i-mi PAAH-dre, DAAH-toh ke aw PEK-koh." 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 23:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Once your friends say that it should be fairly clear to the priest what they want to do. Once that is over with they can probably just give their confession in English, as, as far as I am aware, it is not imperative that the priest fully comprehend what you are confessing. After that, if all has gone well, he should instruct them to say a certain amount of 'Ave Maria' or 'Padre Nostro', (I trust your friends are at least aware of the Italian numbers, that is tourist phrasebook stuff), and, in the eyes of the Lord ;-), your sins should be forgiven. 194.80.32.12 22:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for your input, I have now located a priest quite close to where the are living.82.46.84.112 11:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Silence as discourse

Who is the best writer on silence as a discursive means? John Eagleton —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.134.164.106 (talk) 19:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

I cannot say with any certainty who the 'best' writer on silence as a mode of discourse may be, but your question reminded me of the work of the French historian and philosopher Michel Foucault, particularly The History of Sexuality, where he notes:

Silence itself-the things one declines to say, or is forbidden to name, the discretion that is required between different speakers-is less the absolute limit of discourse, the other side from which it is separated by a strict boundary, than an element that functions alongside the the things said, with them and in relation to them within over-all strategies...There is not one but many silences, and they are an integral part of the strategies that underlie and permeate discourse. (1978, p. 27)

In general Foucault focuses on forms of power and the way in which identity and notions of the self are socially and historically constructed. His work is certainly challenging on a whole number of levels, though I personally feel that he represents a passing intellectual fashion, and shows very little in the way of true greatness and insight. His notions of what passes for good historical research would not stand scrutiny in the Anglo-Saxon world, as declamation and speculation often seem to substitute for the absence of hard empirical knowledge. His prose, moreover, is quite atrocious. As a thinker he will always stand in the shadow of Sartre, as Sartre stands in the shadow of Heidegger. Clio the Muse 20:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Awesome choice of quotes. I had forgotten about that particular bit from HoS but it is an excellent quote. I disagree on your ultimate assessment of him (his historical assertions, as broad categories, have held up pretty well over time, unlike the historical assertions of most philosophers, and in any case I always interpret Foucault to be more about the method of looking at questions of power rather than attempting to be a strict historical account, and I say this as a historian; and I find Foucault infinitely more interesting and useful than Sartre) but he's a good source for this sort of thing generally. --140.247.248.59 21:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Not a writer, but someone who explored the meaning of silence artistically was John Cage, specifically in 4'33". Meelar (talk) 20:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually John Cage wrote several books, including one specifically about silence -- silence in music and also silence in a broad, somewhat Zen-like way. The book is called, naturally, Silence, published in 1961. Pfly 23:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I learn something every day. Meelar (talk) 01:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks- I had considered Foucault (probably should have mentioned that!) I agree with your criticisms as well. Given that practically everythings a social construct, he's a bit constricting. Still, I'm struggling to find anything comprehensive and powerful enough to consider any other views of silence. Perhaps Derrida's differance might be an interesting way of thinking of silence? JE

I'm puzzled by the social construct throw-away criticism — what does that have to do with this? Foucault's point is certainly not that everything is a social construct (in any case what else could it be, really?), and I'm not sure how that becomes constricting in the least. As for Derrida, I have to say that I find him to often border on meaninglessness, and as such can be infinitely employable though not very useful. I suppose to be more useful I would want to know what you were trying to do here — is it a philosophical topic? Is it a historical one? is it something else? Where do you plan on going with this? And do you really need to grab on to one bit of French philosophy or another to make your point? Personally I find these things to be tools, and to select the right tool you have to know what the problem is, though I'm aware I take a more pragmatic view of these things than most philosophers (continental or otherwise). --140.247.248.59 21:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Derrida is not on the 'border of meaninglessness', 140.247; he has gone through immigration and has taken up residence in the country! I suppose I should make my own position clear: as a historian I find Sartre just as useless as Foucault, though, as a thinker, he possesses a transcendent quality which seems to me to be missing in the latter. For me Foucault is, and will never be more than, 'philosophy a la mode'. A personal opinion, I stress, on a matter that will only every be judged in the court of time. We must have this exchange again, some twenty years from now. Clio the Muse 23:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Silence can also be seen as a detrimental effect of public opinion. Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann's theory of the spiral of silence doesn't approach silence from a soothing Zen perspective. Instead, she desribes the public as a tribunal which judges and sanctions individuals according to their behavior. This perceived public tribunal can generate an enormous pressure to conformity and a fear of being socially ostracized and isolated. As a result, people may choose silence over discourse in their social interactions. ---Sluzzelin talk 10:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Plutarch has some interesting comments on the subject in his essay "On Talkativeness" (often referred to by its Latin title De garrulitate), online in English here. Plutarch's comments on Heraclitus' silent, gestural teachings are somewhat wackily developed by A. M. Battegazzore, Gestualità e Oracolarità in Eraclito (Genoa 1979). Wareh 15:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)