Humanities desk
< February 9	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 11 >

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.

February 10[edit]

International treaties, agreements etc[edit]

Why are treaties, signed agreements etc so important in politics. I mean there's no grand entity to enforce such things; it's basically down to the parties themselves so why are they used? --TuringMachine17 (talk) 00:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've always wondered this myself. I think the idea is that states will be motivated to act in accordance with the treaties so that they'll be trusted next time they need to reach an agreement with other states. That doesn't seem to work very well, though, particularly with large influential states. --Tango (talk) 00:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there are "grand entities" to enforce treaties, such as the World Trade Organization, which enforces trade agreements. Any member must do as the WTO tells them, or they risk being ejected, which would mean they would then have stiff tariffs on anything they tried to export. StuRat (talk) 05:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The WTO would be the last organization I'd list in terms of treaty enforcement. The UN would be a lot higher on the list, but of course, all of that is subject to my comment below. Shadowjams (talk) 12:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the treaty. But, sometimes you get something in exchange, sometimes you want to be in good standing with your partners, and sometimes weapons enforce it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.9.108.139 (talk) 23:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With all things human, organizations like this, and laws in general, are entirely based upon power. "Law" in the modern western sense is not sacrosanct and passed down from high. Modern western rule of law works almost entirely because the people accept it as legitimate. There are plenty of ways to have legitimacy, whether through the western model, religion, cult of personality, monarchy, etc. Assuming you come from a western law tradition, the concept of a law without enforcement may seem strange to you. In fact, in most western democracies the idea is hard to fathom within those bounds. But "international law" is a great example of "law if we want to", an it's not like that concept's really all that distant. The American Civil War is a pretty clear example of that concept in practice, and there are innumerable examples throughout the history of civilizations that seem to respect the rule of law.

Short answer is this: if you want a standard legal interpretation then you need to be a lot more specific about your question. But if you're interested in the broader concept, the question is more one of statesmanship than of law. Shadowjams (talk) 12:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep an informal agreement with a neighbor? You may want that neighbor's goodwill in some other matter, and being trustworthy can help you get it. The penalty for violating a treaty is that other parties won't trust you not to break other treaties, and so will be reluctant to make deals with you. Treaties are formal so that it's clear what is being promised and by what authority. —Tamfang (talk) 18:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Darius III and Greek[edit]

I remember reading somewhere, I think it was in Peter Green's "Alexander of Macedon", that Darius III could speak Attic Greek. What are the sources for this? Is it historically plausible that Persian kings were educated to speak Greek? Cevlakohn (talk) 00:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget that Darius III was not raised as a royal heir or even as one of the immediate royal family. He was a "distant relative" and was employed as a royal courier before the machinations of others put him on the throne. It seems to me plausible that a professional royal courier would have learned to speak one or more languages of important foreign powers to and from whom he might have to convey official documents, and in any case it has been a widespread practice throughout history for well-educated people to learn one or more foreign languages formally, and for tradespeople and others to acquire them in the course of their everyday affairs, but I'm sure someone with more specific knowledge of the period will have more certain information. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.161 (talk) 01:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem more likely for him to speak Ionic Greek (a near relative of Attic Greek), since Ionic was the language of some of Persia's most important western possessions. 76.24.104.200 (talk) 02:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This probably goes back to a passage from Curtius Rufus' Latin History of Alexander the Great in which he says that Darius at one point held a conversation with the Greek mercenary leader Patron without the use of an interpreter "for Darius was not at all ignorant of the Greek language" (V.11.4).[1] Patron was from Phocis, which means that he would have spoken a form of Doric or Northwest Greek, but the conversation itself could of course have been in Attic or Ionic, if it really did take place. However, Curtius Rufus is a very uncritical historian whose sources are not well known. Iblardi (talk) 22:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

pulling out all the stops[edit]

"Pulling out all the stops" is a metaphor in non-musical contexts, evoking opening all the valves in a pipe organ so the thing is playing at full blast. My question is whether this is ever done literally when playing organ music, particularly on big church organs. I'd imagine it would sound awful, but don't know. If it's actually done in real music, I wonder if there's one of those Latin or Italian words for it, that would appear in the score. Thanks. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 07:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The place where I came across it was when my music teacher was playing Widor's Toccata from his 5th Symphony - the extremely loud passage in it has most, if not all, stops out. The church organ he was playing had one stop which, when pulled, took about another 20 with it! (Mind you I was only about 14 at the time and in awe of this cool dude who could play stuff like that so I wasn't really looking at the organ or the music, for that matter...) --TammyMoet (talk) 11:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The effect is certainly used, though in modern organs you don't actually need to pull out all the individual stops, as there is usually a button to do it. See Tutti, though in my experience the term "full organ" is more common. --ColinFine (talk) 12:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. FWIW, I've also heard "tutti" as meaning an ensemble number in an opera, like the last scene of The Marriage of Figaro, but the article doesn't mention that usage. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 23:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More information at Organ console. Alansplodge (talk) 10:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do audio books normally include a pdf (or epub, djuv or whatever) version[edit]

Do they? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.170.181.95 (talk) 17:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not normally, no. I dare say it does happen, but the publishers will usually release audio books and ebooks separately, and charge for each. - Cucumber Mike (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]