Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Essay:Greatest Mysteries of World History

2009-04-29T18:43:42Z

NicholasT: /* "Ancient humor" */

==Dark Ages==

I have to ask: does this really qualify as a "mystery?" Most people who have actually taken the time to study European history, I would suggest, would say that there's a clear and simple answer: "No, the so-called "Dark Ages" weren't really so backwards." Significant advances were made during the period generally termed the "Dark Ages" in many fields: music, agriculture, metallurgy, and philosophy spring to mind immediately. Historians today generally avoid using the term "Dark Ages" for precisely that reason.

Should it really be termed a "mystery" just because some people continue to hold misconceptions about it? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:11, 28 December 2008 (EST)
: Yes, it's not a mystery at all. Renaissance humanists hated the "dark ages" with a passion. Now we know just how much science and culture were developed during those centuries. Not so much a mystery as a myth, really (liberals love to claim early Christian Europe was fruitless) [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 14:14, 28 December 2008 (EST)

::Perhaps a better question would be "Why are the advances of the early Middle Ages frequently overlooked or dismissed?" --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:19, 28 December 2008 (EST)

:::My question is: ''What specific non-warfare scientific/technological advances were made in Christian Western Europe between the fall of Rome and AD1000?'' [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 15:36, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::There were some important scholars, notably Isidore of Seville (6th century Spain), Bede (7th century England) and Alcuin of York (8th century England). But, with these possible exceptions, European scholarship is overshadowed by India, China and the Muslim Caliphate in this period. The first European renaissance started when Christian scholars visited Spain and Sicily to benefit from Arab learning.

::::However, the so-called Dark Ages weren't nearly as obscure are the name suggests. There was significant trade with Byzantium and the Caliphate and the most important monasteries had access to classical Latin texts. There were major building projects, especially of monasteries, particularly from the late 8th century onwards. The standard of craftsmanship was exceptional - you couldn't say it declined at all during the "Dark Ages". Witness the jewelry at Sutton Hoo or the illustrated manuscripts produced by Anglo-Saxon scriptoria. The Anglo-Saxon kings, notably Alfred, Athelstan and Edgar, laid the basis of English government which was formalised by the coronation oath of Henry I.

::::Bear in mind that the setback to civilisation was only in Western Europe. Culture flourished in the Eastern Empire, also in the Arab Caliphate, while the Tang and Song Dynasties represent in many ways the peak of Chinese culture. Also, much of the foundations of mathematics were discovered in India in this period. Universities were first founded in Arab lands (Fez was the first, I think) in the 10th century, before spreading to Spain and thence to Christian Europe. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 20:23, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:::::The operative words in my question above were ''scientific/technological''. I know of Bede and Alcuin and have had occasion to look into Isadore in the last few months. Yes they were scholars, and they shine like beacons. I am also aware of the "Benedictine reformation" and the wonders done by St. Dunstan. But these are beacons in the gloom. Was it Dunstan who had the Benedictine rules translated into "English" because Latin had been largely forgotten? And I love the jewellery of that age. I have had occasion to read much of the [[Anglo-Saxon Chronicle]] a number of times last year...and it really was a dark and dangerous age. Only Christianity kept western society together (and I know of no historian that denies the good the Church did in those times) but as for science and technological advances, really there was very little, if any at all.
In another context the age is also called ''the great interruption''. Cheers [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:19, 9 February 2009 (EST)
::::::Science and technology: almost nothing, I think. The great advances in science during the so-called Dark Ages were in India and the Muslim countries. The West only started to turn the corner in terms of scientific learning when Gerbert (Pope Sylvester II) visited the Muslim universities in Spain, c.1000 (see R.W. Southern, ''The Making of the Middle Ages''). [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 17:59, 10 February 2009 (EST)
:Yes! Now all we have to do is get people to agree to it on [[Essay:Liberal Denials about History]] item (10) under "Specific truths that history books deny".[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 18:57, 10 February 2009 (EST)

==Humor==
Perhaps this entry could be clarified: is there a particular form of humor that the author had in mind? There are examples of jokes, riddles, puns, comic figurines/images, anthropoligical notes of humorous conversations, etc. from both pre-Christian times and from post-Christian 'first contacts' with cultures that had had no previous exposure to Christianity.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 09:37, 8 February 2009 (EST)

:Brossa: Can you provide some? --[[User:AbnerY|AbnerY]] 21:51, 8 February 2009 (EST)

:I'd like to see Brossa's alleged examples also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:49, 8 February 2009 (EST)

::How about Greek and Roman comedy? that way predated Christianity. Andy, what kind of claim are you making here? on what basis would you allege that humor does not predate Christianity? it seems pretty far-fetched. I'd like to see some evidence. --[[User:DaveClark|DaveClark]]

::: You misunderstand what a Greek "comedy" was. It was not a humorous performance as meant by the term today (after the onset of Christianity).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:32, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::: Yes. It was. The intention was to make people laugh. Otherwise, what on earth do you mean by "humor"? Also.. news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7536918.stm [[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 09:02, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::: Aschlafly is right in saying that the term "comedy" did not mean exactly what it does today, but KimSell is right that the works of playwrights such as Aristophanes certainly included humorous elements such as wordplay, farce and grotesque exaggeration (often surprisingly coarse by our standards). I'd also cite the episode where the children mocked Elisha in 2 Kings 2:23-24 as an example, albeit fairly base, of pre-Christian humor.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:10, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::: As a side-note, in the past there have been bitter disputes where people have taken the polar opposite position to Mr Schlafly, ie that all humor is un-Christian. This is touched on in Umberto Eco's ''The Name of the Rose'', which I recommend.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:21, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::::: The pre-Christian examples don't withstand scrutiny. Mockery or crude comments are not quality humor, and may not be humor at all.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:23, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:::::::Sorry Mr. Schlafly. While you may not consider crude comments humorous, it is still defined as humor. you are yet to back up the claim you're making with any specific evidense. even if greek comedy didn't qualify as humor (and it does) there would still be no evidence that the advent of christianity brought the advent of humor.

::::This will be easier if you define precisely what ''you'' mean by 'humor' or 'comedy' so that we can determine if in fact it did or did not exist before Christianity. As the essay stands now, it implies that there was no ''humor'' before Christianity, not that, say, stand-up comedy as practiced in the United States today did not exist in the ancient world. The Greek comedy tradition was well-established by the sixth century BC and contains aspects of sexual farce, parody of 'serious' literary styles, and mockery of specific political and public figures. Comic performers wore characteristic costumes that included fat suits, huge genitalia, and grotesque masks that are still in use in modern comic performances. Greek vases depict these comic characters engaged in antics; I recall in particular a vase depicting two grotesque dwarves helping a third dwarf up a ladder or ramp - Three Stooges level humor.
::::Isaac in the Bible got his name from the laughter of Abraham and Sarah; does this not indicate a sense of humor? Elijah mocks the prophets of Baal, including the suggestion that Baal cannot hear his priests because he is on the toilet.
::::Egyptian papyri show exaggerated caricatures of dishevelled older men engaged in sexual relations with young women, including humorous captions (in heiroglyphics!) detailing the women's commentary on the situation. Other examples of Egyptian pictorial humor include depictions of animals engaged in human activities - like cats herding geese and goats and lions playing board games - juxtaposed with humans engaged in animal activity. A foreign queen is depicted as being so fat that she stands next to an ass with the caption 'the ass needed to carry the queen'.
::::Sumerian scatological humor is recorded (in cuneiform) on a tablet dated to 1900 BC.
::::Many Native American groups had oral traditions that include the 'Trickster' figure, who gets involved in humorous scrapes and mocks authority figures. Many of these stories also include punning wordplay and practical jokes; another dimension of humor.
::::Nineteenth century Australian ethnographers, coming into first contact with an isolated Aboriginal group, noted that the Aboriginals told stories among themselves and laughed during an otherwise stressful time - in this case, a terrible thunderstorm.
::::I'm sure that others could contribute examples from Sanskrit or Asian cultures.
::::So scatological humor, sexual humor, puns, riddles, slapstick, political satire, parody of 'serious' art forms, practical jokes, and others are all documented in pre-Christian or non-Christian cultures.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 09:40, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::: To one with an open mind, your vulgar "examples" tend to reinforce the basic observation: (real) humor was lacking before Christianity. Crudeness or vulgarity or mockery is not true humor, and Greek "comedies" were not attempts at humor in today's sense.

::::: If you had evidence of writings about humor itself, or books of humor, or truly comedic performances, or anything remotely similar to quality humor today, then that could help your argument. But the above examples, if they are the best you have, simply underscore the insight in this essay.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:54, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::: It would have been simpler for you to have simply started with the statement that no 'true humor' existed before Christianity, so that we would have known what sort of Scotsman we were dealing with in the first place. At any rate, the Japanese had [http://www.conservapedia.com/Noh_theater#What_is_Ky.C5.8Dgen.3F mature forms of theater] designed to "draw rich laughter from the audience" before Christianity was introduced to Japan.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 11:02, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::Have you ever watched an ancient Greek comedy? Because I have, and in parts, they are downright hilarious. As people keep saying, you have not explained what you mean by "humor" and so, this conversation would seem to be pointless. However, Aristotle speaks of the history of Greek comedy, including the fact that it was funny! [[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 10:39, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::::: May I ask what is the earliest example of true humor that you know of? While I respect the viewpoint that the above examples are not real humor, I don't know of any new form that emerged very soon after the establishment of Christianity.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:30, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::::::If you are so adament about so called "genuine humor" mr. Schlafly, then please define it for us.

::::::::Clearly there is a distinction to be made between things that are funny and things that are 'humor'. If it was intended to make people laugh, it qualifies as humor, whether it was funny or not. No doubt plenty of movies made by the Zuckers and the Farrelly brothers aren't funny, but they're still comedies. I don't find Groucho Marx very funny but he still counts as a comedian. What you seem to mean is that you don't find pre-Christian humor amusing. That's fine but it hardly counts as one of the 'greatest mysteries of world history'.[[User:Sam99foster|Sam99foster]] 12:09, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::: I agree with Mr Achalfly in that for something to be humorous it needs to have a certain amount of taste and refinement. For example, the article mentions a man getting hit in the crotch by a ball. While some people may find this funny, I daresay there are very few people in the world whi would call this humor. The article also mentions the Jackass movie; again, while a few people may find it amusing, I doubt very many people would define it as humorous. What do these two examples have in common? A lack of taste and refinement. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 13:26, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::::Surely someone with an open mind would find such taste and refinement in ancient Greco-Roman political satire (e.g. from Aristophanes). Humor undeniably existed before Christianity. Let's just put this behind us as a misunderstanding (or even a disagreement over personal preference). [[User:FundieMath|FundieMath]] 13:41, 9 February 2009 (EST)

For the elucidation of all: "''The Oxford Companion to Classical Literature''" describes Aristophanes as an "Athenian comic poet". Eleven of his plays survive. I know of at least one that has been performed in modern times - "''The Wasps''". I have a CD of it (2 CD set actually) Originally, it was produced in 422 B.C. and is a satirical comedy, poking fun at the Athenian jury system of the time and the state of contemporary politics. It is a comedy of manners, with elements of parody, occasional crudity and slapstick. Sounds like the Restoration writers to me. Or Voltaire. Even Shakespeare indulged in a bit of crudity at times. Modern productions, of course, update some of the scenes.

Aristophanes, who is still read and studied, is only one of many writers of comedies in those times. There was an annual competition for comedy. (''The Wasps'' came 2nd in its year.) Aristophanes' style has been copied by classically trained playwrights since...the Frenchman, Racine, for instance.

The above Oxford Companion devotes over 3 tightly printed pages to ancient Greek and Roman comedy, as well as many mentioned writers getting their own articles. Perhaps we today would not find as funny, but scenes in Shakespeare that had them rolling around in the aisles in 1600 do not quite have that power today. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 14:40, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:remove indent) ETundel, you are confusing "I find it funny" with "it is intended as Humor." I don't find Jackass funny myself, but it is still considered humour. It may be very low comedy, which it is and not everyone will like it, but the fact remains that something does not cease to be "humour" just because X amount of people don't find it funny. [[User:StephenK|StephenK]] 16:25, 9 February 2009 (EST)

The above discussion is interesting, and I'd like to learn more about "The Wasps." But certainly much of the above, such as vulgarity, is not "humor" as defined primarily by the dictionary: the "ludicrous" or (more importantly) the "absurdly incongruous."

There are dim-witted people who are amused by compulsive profanity or, as on this site, by mindless vandalism. Parody and sarcasm is also immensely entertaining to the easily amused. But this is not "humor" as defined by the dictionary, and I still haven't seen any compelling examples of pre-Christian humor. A performance like "Trading Places" would qualify, but it didn't exist.

It's interesting how strenuously some people object to the proposition that humor did not predate Christianity. Surely your minds are not so closed as to think the proposition to be automatically impossible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:48, 9 February 2009 (EST)

: Here you go Andy, here is the full text of "The Wasps" for you to read at your leisure here[http://classics.mit.edu/Aristophanes/wasps.html]. You can judge for yourself if you find it humorous. Honestly, I'm surprised that you're surprised; you throw out a proposition that runs counter to even the most basic understanding of behavior and psychology, basically saying that before Christ nobody knew how to be genuinely funny, and are surprised when people question that? Having an open mind doesn't mean you accept everything to be true. --[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 18:19, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::(EC)"But certainly much of the above, such as vulgarity, is not "humor" as defined primarily by the dictionary"
::Presumably if ANY of the above is humor as defined by the dictionary, then there was humor that pre-dated Christianity. If Aristophanes wrote a political satire ("a satirical comedy, poking fun ... at the state of contemporary politics"), would that not make it a humorous piece of work by any normal definition?[[User:Sam99foster|Sam99foster]] 18:28, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::: ShawnJ and Sam99foster, please answer my question: are you saying that you believe the proposition to be automatically impossible??? It sure sounds that way from some of the closed-minded postings above. Note, by the way, that satire is not "humor" per its primary dictionary definition.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:42, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::: No Andy, I don't find it automatically impossible, I find it impossible after brief consideration. That means I gave your question thought, and found its position to be ludicrous. The question infers that somehow, before Christ, humans did not have access to the full range of their emotions. You can argue over how humor, like ethics and morality, have changed over the years, but it doesn't stop them from existing. Rejecting the notion that humor didn't exist before Christ is not an example of closed-mindedness any more than rejecting the notion that 2+2=76 is. --[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 23:22, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::: Andy, why do you assume that we're automatically dismissing the notion? We are using historical facts and examples which you yourself seem to be dismissing out of hand without giving them any thought. Case in point, your two line rebuttal to a whole list of examples on the grounds that they are all "vulgar." Well, what's vulgar about this? "Other examples of Egyptian pictorial humor include depictions of animals engaged in human activities - like cats herding geese and goats and lions playing board games - juxtaposed with humans engaged in animal activity." Nothing sexual, crude, or otherwise off-color here, just a '''ludicrous''' and '''absurdly incongruous''' situation that could only be intended as humorous, and yet you, without apparently even reading what the user posted, flippantly dismiss it for some reason unbeknownst to the rest of us.

::::: Now, although you are somewhat correct in saying that comedy did not mean the same thing to the ancient Greeks that it does to a modern audience, you blindly overlook two other important points. First, that ancient definition of comedy--or a version of it (Boethian, to be exact)--lasted long past the birth of Christianity. Dante and Shakespeare both wrote their comedies under this ancient definition, which is why something like the The Divine Comedy is called, well, a comedy, despite the fact that the first third of it details brutal torture and punishment without any humor whatsoever, or at least none that I can recall off the top of my head. In essence, to credit Christianity with the rise of modern "comedy" simply because of the history of that word and the genre it represents misses the mark by at least 1500-1600 years.

::::: More importantly, you ignore the fact that Greeks also had a third dramatic form, the satyr play (from which we derive the English word "satire"), which was very close to what we mean by modern comedy. Fewer of these have survived, but the express purpose of these plays was to generate laughter, which is why they were named after satyrs, who were presumed to be pranksters in Greek myth. Very often, these plays simply relied on ludicrous and absurd situations to get the audience laughing. Often these were crude, yes, but not exclusively so.

::::: We aren't automatically dismissing the idea. We're dismissing the idea because it is objectively wrong and every single shred of evidence indicates the exact opposite, even when working within your incredibly limited definition of "humor." --[[User:JakeLa|Jake Lassiter]] 10:10, 12 February 2009 (EST)

Sir, since you say parody is not humor, is [[Essay:Born_Outside_the_U.S.A.!|this]], therefore, not funny?

[[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 19:57, 9 February 2009 (EST)

: Do you often speak in non sequiturs?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:00, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:: How is that a non-sequitur? You argue that parody and satire are not humor, so I point you to something that you presumably wrote as a humorous piece. You certainly didn't reject the accolades that termed it funny.

::: You argue, ''"Note, by the way, that satire is not "humor" per its primary dictionary definition."'' What dictionary are you using? [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/humor According to Merriam-Webster's on-line dictionary], this is the definition of humor in the context with which we are concerned (the others definitions concern the dated usage referring to the human body):

* that quality which appeals to a sense of the ludicrous or absurdly incongruous
* the mental faculty of discovering, expressing, or appreciating the ludicrous or absurdly incongruous
* something that is or is designed to be comical or amusing

Parody and satire seem to fit both the first and third. If you disagree, please explain why.

So, what is your definition? You've not provided one yet; you've merely said "humor is not (fill in the blank)".

I view humor as a gift from God. It allows us to get through our most troubling times. The idea that humor only existed after Christ is as alien to me as the idea that romantic love only existed after Christ. [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 20:19, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::: I apologize to Mr. Schlafly in that I charged that he had not provided a definition of humor -- he had, and it was, embarrassingly enough, the same one I cited. This topic has become long, and I missed his definition.

::: However, I still ask this: how do parody and satire '''''not''''' fit that definition?

::: Mr. Schlafly also cites the film ''Trading Places'' as an example of humor. Well, Eddie Murphy was never one of my favorites, since, particularly during the time he made that movie, he was extraordinarily foul-mouthed. But... as I understand it, plot of the movie is two people from different worlds trade lives, and we see how they both handle it, or fail to do so.

::: That strikes me as something that has to be one of the oldest jokes imaginable -- laughing at the "fish out of water" concept. I can easily imagine two Egyptian peasants, toiling down in the Nile Delta, lightening their day by laughing at the thought of the Pharaoh having to do their jobs for a while. "He'd be worried about getting his robes dirty!" "He probably couldn't even fill ten bushels of reeds!" (Of course, "ten bushels of reeds" isn't funny to us, but it might be hilarious to the guy who could pick thirty bushels before a lunch break.)

::: Now, admittedly, I'm speculating, but so is Mr. Schlafly. And I think my speculation is quite reasonable -- ancient people laughing at a concept we still find funny. He, by contrast, apparently imagines humanity consisted of a collection of dour sourpusses and/or vulgarians who couldn't appreciate anything beyond a flatulence joke until somewhere between 1 and 30 AD.

::: He also charges those of us who don't see his viewpoint of being close-minded. Sorry, no -- it is not close-minded to expect extraordinary proof for an extraordinary claim. If I said, "perhaps, until Christ was born, the sky was green and the grass was blue", you'd be justified in taking that with a huge grain of salt -- particularly if you presented me with some evidence that, in 200 BC, the sky was blue and the grass was green, and I responded with "well, that's not really ''blue'' and ''green'', that's ''cobalt'' and ''emerald''." [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 08:47, 10 February 2009 (EST)

I'm new here but I don't understand this one. What has Christianity got to do with humour? In any case, the answer is "yes" - as contributors above suggest, go and read (or even better, watch) Aristophanes. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 20:10, 9 February 2009 (EST)
::Whilst shopping just now I nicked into my local newsagency-cum-bookshop. There were Penguin Classics editions on the shelf of Aristophanes' ''Frogs'', ''The Birds'', ''Lysistrata'' and ''The Clouds''. This not a big shop....so it seems old Aristophanes is alive and kicking, if only as part of a subject at university. (I must admit that I only have the ''Wasps'' CDs because of the wonderful RVW incidental music written for a Cambridge Uni dramatic society performance in 1909, but it shows that he is not completely out of date and that his wit can be applied to modern circumstance.) The word ''wit'' is what I keep coming across regards his plays.[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 20:40, 9 February 2009 (EST)

==="Ancient humor"===
One thing I think many of Mr. Schlafay's detractors are overlooking is the possibility that the works we refer to as "comedies" today might not have been intended as comedies in their own time. The word "[[comedy]]" is English (as are all the other words used to describe Aristophanes' work: [[joke]], [[humor]], etc.), so we are in effect relying on modern translators of Ancient Greek to tell us what the Ancient Greeks thought about their own literary works.

The other day I was looking out my [[window]] and saw two [[squirrel]]s chasing each other up and down a [[tree]] trunk. Suddenly the lead squirrel stopped and turned around so suddenly that the other squirrel bumped into its head and fell off the tree! (It was only six feet or so off the ground, so the squirrel was unharmed.) I laughed at this funny occurrence — but of course the two squirrels weren't ''trying'' to put on a funny show for me; they were just doing what comes naturally to animals. Perhaps when we look into our history books and see the funny things that were done by Aristophanes, we should keep these two squirrels in mind. I think Mr. Schlafay was speaking particularly about the ''conscious'' exercise of humor — the ''intention'' to do funny things, not simply the ''fact'' of having done funny things. Nobody can seriously argue that nothing funny ever happened in antiquity... but ''why'' did it happen? that's the question. --[[User:GarthA|GarthA]] 21:48, 9 February 2009 (EST)

: That's an excellent point. Some of the ancient vulgarity, for example, was probably not intended to be "funny" any more than compulsive profanity today is intended to be funny. Someone 1000 years from now may look at dialog between two public school students today as being absolutely hilarious, even though the students are not trying to be funny now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:24, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:: The City Dionysia, which is the festival where these plays were preformed had several highly established conventions, including that four plays were to be preformed by each group: three tragedies and then a comedy. Comedies by nature are funny. While vulgar humor was indeed used, they still fit the definition of comedy ("a drama of light and amusing character and typically with a happy ending" according to Merriam-Webster). Whether people find them funny is up to them (I happen to like Scrubs, while my brother despises the show. However, he likes Family Guy, which I dislike). But the original intent of the comedies was to make people laugh, which qualifies it as humor [[User:ENorman|ENorman]] 22:45, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::That's very clever thinking, Garth. Fortunately, we have contemporary reviews of the work of authors like Aristophanes, which described them as being humorous (or in some cases not humorous enough!).
::I suspect that this debate might be in order to get people thinking outside the box while at the same time testing their composure. Of course, humor could have not predated Christianity and of course, that is not the case. But how are you going to react when someone doggedly pursues the contrary? How are you going to react when someone refuses to define their terms or moves the goalpost or shifts ground? Will you calmly research and respond? Or will you resort to liberal deceit and condescend to them. Not only should you survey the responses you see here, you should also be doing research of your own before you form your conclusions.
::If you do your research, you will probably find the evidence for pre-Christian humor that you find compelling. Either way, come back here and attempt to argue your point. Remember to stay calm, approachable and accommodating. I urge you to engage in this exercise and wish you the best. [[User:FundieMath|FundieMath]] 22:53, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:::Garth, there were no "''funny things done by Aristophanes''" any more than there were ''funny things done by'' humorous writers of modern times. He wrote plays, in verse, using the formal dramatic restraints of his day. In 5th century Athens there were two distinct forms of stage performances. There were the Tragedies, the most famed writers of which are Euripides and Aeschylus; and the Comedies, represented today by our mate Aristophanes. Never the twain did meet. They probably both developed out of pre-Classical Dionysian ritual, but by Classical times they were distinct from each other. Unlike the tragedians, Aristophanes set out to make people laugh; and to do this he used many of the forms used today - funny or fantastical situations, plays on words, ridicule of people in power, etc., He is supposed to have been very witty. He had a way with words. He was also a serious man who was concerned at perceived faults in the society he lived in, and used humor as a weapon against these things. He is recorded as saying "comedy knows what is right." He brought the powerful down a peg or two. My "Dictionary of Greek Civilisation", a book set for university courses during the 1970s, called him "a comic genius". [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 22:57, 9 February 2009 (EST)

Mr. Schlafay: Thank you. ENorman and "Fundie": It sounds like you are resorting to [[appeal to authority]] in this case. Remember that we do not actually have "contemporary reviews" of Aristophanes; what we have are ''modern translations'' of those works. I'm not even sure we would be justified in calling them "reviews", as you did, since I doubt the Ancient Greeks had anything like the modern conception of a film review or book review. "Fundie", I'm glad we agree about the value of exercise. AlanE: If Aristophanes never did anything funny, then in what sense was he a comedian? You describe him as a "serious man" who "ridicule[d] people in power"; this Aristophanes sounds like something of a [[liberal]] [[radical]]! :) --[[User:GarthA|GarthA]] 23:10, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:Who were the "liberals" - those in power or Aristophanes? Let's not bring today's concepts into describing someone who lived 2500years ago. He was not a comedian any more than Jonathan Swift was when he used ''Gulliver's Travels'' to lampoon the foibles of his age. Have you read him? The use of comedy to prick the inflated egos of the powerful, whether they be politicians, judges, or whatever, has a long and noble history, both for those on the left and on the right. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:49, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:: This is so ignorant it's just adorable:

:: <blockquote>"I'm not even sure we would be justified in calling them "reviews", as you did, since I doubt the Ancient Greeks had anything like the modern conception of a film review or book review."</blockquote>

:: What in the wide wide world of sports do you think Aristotle's ''Poetics'' was? --[[User:JakeLa|Jake Lassiter]] 10:33 12 February 2009

:Remember to do a little research! The first line of Aristophanes' ''[http://classics.mit.edu/Aristophanes/frogs.html The Frogs]'':
::<blockquote>XANTHIAS: Shall I crack any of those old jokes, master, At which the audience never fail to laugh?</blockquote>
:I'm almost positive there is some implication of humor somewhere in there! Form your own conclusions! [[User:FundieMath|FundieMath]] 23:32, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:::Well done, Fundie! [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:51, 9 February 2009 (EST)
::::Having read this controversy with interest, I am forced to agree with Mr Schalfly. There is a difference between the theatre of cruelty - sarcasm and cruel raillery - that was the hallmark of the pagan Greeks, and true humour, which to be effective needs access to the depths of ones heart and soul, a perspective that only became real through the incarnation and suffering of Christ. Similarly, the coarseness of peasant nonsense such as was available to primitive peoples - the ancient equivalent of gurning through horse collars - has no right to be defined as humour. What Mr Schlafly is attempting to describe (albeit to a deliberately unreceptive audience) is something wiser, something altogether more refined and insightful. I wish him luck in persuading the unpersuadable. [[User:RegalBruin|RegalBruin]] 14:25, 10 February 2009 (EST)
:::::Hi and welcome to CP, Regal! I'm interested in your view of my quote from ''The Frogs'' (above) in light of CP's definition of [[Humor]]:

:::::<blockquote>Humor is an act, statement, or other form of communication done to invoke laughter, amusement, or happiness in the audience.</blockquote>

:::::If you agree that Xanthias intended to invoke laughter by cracking jokes and continue to believe that this is not humor, please explain how you would like to see our definition of 'humor' changed. [[User:MattL|MattL]] 14:41, 10 February 2009 (EST)
::::::And G'day from me, Regal. Can you tell us what dictionary you use? All of mine say more or less the same things. What is refined humour,? Wise humour. Insightful humour. Can we have examples? BTW, all the things you find detestable in so-called ''pagan'' humour is found unabated in Chaucer and the ''Decamaron'' and the other medieval story-tellers. Shakespeare used it. Scatalogical humour was the rage through most of the reformation times and later. Mozart wrote scatalogical songs. The bedroom farce has always been popular - we had no senior churchmen refusing to go to ''The Marriage of Figaro''. The Greeks laughed at the dolt and so do we - hence the undying popularity of the Inspector Clouseau type character through history. Nothing changed. No one is denying that much pagan humour was coarse; but what I am saying is that it has never stopped being coarse, and I am also saying that before Christ there was humour of the kind that we find in Wodehouse or Wilde, and the one-liners of Groucho Marx or Dorothy Parker, which are clever because they manage to nail an aspect of the human condition in so few words. Aristophanes could do that.(Unlike I, who go on and on...:))[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 15:58, 10 February 2009 (EST)

::::::: It appears that discussing humor with [[atheists]] is a fool's errand because they, like the ancient Greeks, are unable (or refuse) to open their minds to what real humor is. I've defined it several times, as does the dictionary; it is something "ludicrous" or "absurdly incongruous." Vulgarities may amuse the simple-minded to no end, and so may slapstick comedy (which is all the "Frogs" is referencing in its opening line), but it's not humor.

::::::: We've learned something from this discussion. It's not just the pre-Christians who were without humor, but so are [[atheists]] today. It's unfortunate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:57, 10 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::::"Ludicrous": amusing or laughable through obvious absurdity, incongruity, exaggeration, or eccentricity; causing laughter because of absurdity; broadly or extravagantly humorous, resembling farce. All of these definitions are fulfilled in the examples that have already been stated in this discussion. For that matter, they are all fulfilled by the image on [http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/highlight_objects/gr/r/wine_bowl,_apulia.aspx this vase in the British Museum] from the fourth century BC.
::::::::::If your second paragraph is meant to imply that your whole premise behind claiming that there was no humor before Christianity was to poke fun of atheists - since only atheists are so humorless as to take such a ludicrous proposition seriously - then I am afraid that your Modest Proposal has been found lacking.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 18:48, 10 February 2009 (EST)

:::::::: Now that we've established that humor is a post-Christian phenomenon, we would do well to explore it's origins within Christianity. Do you have early Christian examples? [[User:MattL|MattL]] 17:03, 10 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::: In regards to something ludicrous or absurdly incongruous, from Plutarch's ''The Comparison of Demosthenes and Cicero'':

:::::::::<blockquote>So also we are told that when Cicero, being consul, undertook the defence of Murena against Cato's prosecution, by way of bantering Cato, he made a long series of jokes upon the absurd paradoxes, as they are called, of the Stoic set; so that a loud laughter passing from the crowd to the judges, Cato, with a quiet smile, said to those that sat next him, "My friends, what an amusing consul we have."</blockquote> We can plainly see that this is absurd. Now for the incongruity - A paradox, as defined by MW, is "a statement that is seemingly contradictory or opposed to common sense and yet is perhaps true". Incongruous, as defined by MW, describes "something inconsistent with itself". Could this possibly be an example of humor? [[User:MattL|MattL]] 17:11, 10 February 2009 (EST)

Merriam-Webster also says that humor is "something that is or is designed to be comical or amusing." Doesn't that describe Aristophanes? [[User:BenjaminC|BenjaminC]] 17:38, 10 February 2009 (EST)
:It seems that I go away an hour and suddenly I am "without humour" and an atheist,Andy. Why have you reverted to (a) being personal to someone whose sense of humour you know nothing about and who has based his arguments on basic well-documented scholarly texts in a generally polite manner and (b)decided on a definition of humour that is at odds with every dictionary and encyclopedia I can find? Whether I am a Methodist, atheist, Catholic or calathumpian has nothing to do with the my arguments which, like most of my words in this site, are based on a lifetime of reading the canon of western literature and about it. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 20:20, 10 February 2009 (EST)
:::I don't know why Mr Schlafly should have to defend himself against such an intemperate passive-aggressive assault. And if, as you claim, you are an expert on the entire canon of western culture, I should expect to find you in concordance with his ideas. [[User:RegalBruin|RegalBruin]] 11:50, 11 February 2009 (EST)
::::I didn't say, nor mean to imply, I was "''an expert on the entire canon of western culture''", Regal. What I can say is that that I, especially in this case, is that I am basing my statements on books (you know...those old fashioned things with pages that people used to read and geriatrics like me still do - I own thousands of them and have read untold thousands more.) So if I talk about the humour in Chaucer or Shakespeare, or mention Voltaire, or Beaumarchais (who? he says), Regal, it's because I've been there, mate, and done that, and have the tee shirt. (Even if, half the time now I have forgotten where I've put it!) Now, I assume you are being silly, perhaps "parodical", in your final phrase, but I am not in the mood. Andrew Schafly might be able to turn off severe sciatica with a quick prayer, but I can't; so I want to take it out on people: and seeing its not yet dawn and the rest of the family is still fast asleep, that means you! So do me one favour...go and find one reference - just one - from a reputable reference source, that "humour" started with Christianity. (And while you are at it, try and help Andrew by finding a reference for the Chinese inventing bamboo.)[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 14:03, 11 February 2009 (EST)

::The assumption that anyone who disagrees with Mr. S must be an atheist is indeed a pretty flimsy deflecting tactic. The claim being debated is not quite as bizarre as saying that there was no epic poetry before Christ.
::I'll chime in re the claim that the pagans had only farcical, bawdy, dirty type humor. I'm only familiar with 2 Aristophanes plays, ''Lysistrata'' and ''The Clouds''. ''Lysistrata'' does have a bawdy premise - the women of Greece conspire to not go to bed with their husbands until they end their war - but the play's point was political, not sexual, and it spoke on a real contemporary topic (the Peloponessian War) and addressed leading politicians by name. ''Clouds'' is a purely intellectual satire, making fun of the sophists in general and Socrates in particular. (Soc. was not actually a sophist but was apparently identified with them.) There are also a few poop jokes thrown in there, but that's no different from a lot of intellectual comedy today: I think of ''Little Miss Sunshine,'' that had jokes about Proust and Nietzshe, but also jokes about the dirty old grandfather character.
::My favorite thing about ''Clouds'' is that the main butt of the jokes, Socrates, was ''actually there in the audience'' watching it. The intro to my copy says that at the performance, the mask for the Socrates actor was such a good caricature, they had Socrates himself stand up so the audience could applaud the mask maker. [[User:Fishal|Fishal]] 20:36, 10 February 2009 (EST)
:::A lot of this boils down to arguing definitions - a fruitless argument that could go on endlessly if we had nothing better to do. What does interest me is the idea of a new form of humor emerging during or after the life of Jesus. Does anyone have any examples of a first- or second-century shift towards more refined types of humor? Perhaps "What is the earliest example of genuine humor" could be added to the list of mysteries?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:47, 11 February 2009 (EST)
::::I don't know if this has been brought up, but it appears that Mr. Schlafly doesn't find the "crude" humour entertaining (nothing wrong with that, it'd not everybody's thing) but what about wordplay and the double negative? I sumbit my favorite passage from Homer's Odyssey: When captured by the Cyclops, Odysseus tells him that his name is "Nobody." Later, after they attack the Cyclops and blind him, he storms around his cave in a rage screaming "Nobody will not get out alive" a double negative, and then calls to his brothers that "Nobody has blinded me, Nobody has blinded me." The Cyclops thinks he is calling for help, but not understanding what he is actually saying, his brothers misunderstand him and stay away... This type of humour leads directly to the modern examples of Abbott and Costello's "Who's on First?" routine, as well as the Chico and Groucho's constant back and forth in their movies "Chico:(looking at a Contract) What'sa this?" "Groucho: That's just the standard Sanity Clause" "Chico:You can't fool me, there ain't no Sanity Claus." [[User:StephenK|StephenK]] 12:15, 11 February 2009 (EST)

:::Apologies for coming in on this debate so late, but I am a student of Theatre and I would like to put my two cents in. It's certainly not a sign of stupidity to question the origins of comedic humor. Like anything else, everything has an origin and the birth of Christianity is just as good a measuring stick as any other.

:::That being said, I do indeed believe that humor as it has been defined here predates Christianity. The plays of Plautus and Terrence especially come to mind. Mr. Schlafly, you cited specifically the film ''Trading Places'', yes? Well one of the Roman Plautus's more well known plays, ''Menaechmi'' is similar in wit and predates the birth of Christ by...I believe around two hundred years, though I could be wrong on the exact number. It specifically deals with a pair of estranged twins and ultimately draws it's comedy from their machinations when the come together in Sicily and one twin's wife mistakes the other for her husband while her real husband is getting back at her by giving away some of her belongings to a prostitute. It is a play whose intention is to evoke laughter and gaiety through use of situational irony and circumstance. The "mistaken identity" theme is a widely recognized hallmark of humor and the play was later adapted by William Shakespeare in "A Comedy of Errors". This is only a single example and if it is insufficient to convince you then I can provide more. --[[User:NicholasT|NicholasT]] 12:20, 29 April 2009 (EDT)

:::: I'm not familiar with that work and welcome specific "humor" that you think is in it. I caution you, however, against automatically assuming that the play must have been intended to be "humor" as "Trading Places" is. Most ancient "comedies" were not really "humor" in the modern sense of the word, but were charming poetry. "To err is human; to forgive divine" could have been in a "comedy" in the ancient sense of the term, but it is not "humor".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:33, 29 April 2009 (EDT)

:::::As I said before, I am a student of Theatre. I am familiar with the varying definition of comedy, especially in regards to the history of the playwright. On the whole being designated a "comedy" as laid down in Aristotle's "Poetics" only meant that it was not a tragedy: meaning that the protagonist did not ultimately fall victim to his tragic flaw or hamartia as is necessary in a tragedy. Indeed, a comedy in the theatrical sense is not by necessarily "funny", however, a play intended to be funny would still fall under the category of comedy. What I provide is not only a comedy in the classical sense, but a comedy explicitly intended to be funny and, furthermore, primarily through the use of wit and situation rather than explicitly through vulgarity and slapstick. [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text.jsp?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0101%3Aact%3Dintro%3Ascene%3Dsubject here is a text, translated from it's original latin] that I managed to find. The first lines of act one, scene one have the character Peniculus explaining that his friends call him "The Sponge" because of his enormous apatite and ability to seemingly absorb food and clean a table. This becomes a bit of a running gag with lines such as between one of the characters and her servant when she sends the servant with some money to get food. She says basically "We need food for three people" to which the servant replies "Who's eating" when he learns that the list of three includes Peniculus he states "So I'll need enough money to get food for ten people then." This is just one example of a "gag" within the script. Much of the humor comes from the characters comentary on the action which is given directly to the audience. The relationship between Menaechmus and his wife, for instance is another source of humor and is reminiscent of "The Honeymooners". At one point Menaechmus tells his consort that he spent a fairly large amount of money on some clothes for his wife, prompting Peniculus to say sadly to the audience "And that's good money he'll never see again...". These are just some examples from the first act. The overall plot of the show, as I said before, involves what has become one of the most prevalent comedic devices of mistaken identity to drive the plot.

:::::The notes provided in the translation occasionally point out various terms that while not readily apparent "where meant to make the audience laugh". Plautus also helped to pioneer the various comedic stereotypes which would eventually become the basis for the Italian Comedia Del Arte and later would be exploited by Shakespeare and persist even today. These include: The crafty servant, The pompous, ego-inflated general, the buffoonish erudite, the elderly lech, the idiotic lover, and others. Most of these archetypes can be seen in "The Taming of the Shrew" as a matter of fact, relatively unchanged from the base of their inception. I could go further into a discussion regarding this play if you wish, though we are quickly approaching the level of research paper and most of the info can be found in the link I provided above. I believe it meets all of the criteria for being considered true humor. It is not based around physical slapstick or vulgarity, it's intention is to make the audience laugh, it utilizes an acknowledged comedic device as a plot driver, and it is verified as predating Christianity (Plautus is believed to have died around 184 B.C.). Again, if this one play is insufficient, then I could provide more evidence. I apologize for the length of this post, but I do love discusing Theatre and while brevity may be the soul of wit, I am not claiming to be witty...just that this play is witty :)--[[User:NicholasT|NicholasT]] 14:01, 29 April 2009 (EDT)

==Who was right - Catholics or Protestants?==

Can you explain what you mean by this question? It's a bit like asking - who is right, Christians of Buddhists? Do you mean, regarding Transubstantiation? Or do you mean celibacy? Or the infallibility of the Pope? Maybe you could phrase it a little more clearly? Finally, do you think it's helpful to the world to see the world like this? Doesn't every faith believe it's 'right'? [[User:TadghOB|TadghOB]] 17:10, 9 February 2009 (EST)

: Surely you don't think that just because different people hold different views that each think are right, truth therefore does not exist. If I told that some cultures believe that 2+2 equals infinity, and are convinced they are right, would that change your view that 2+2=4 and not infinity?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:50, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::Well, yes, I do? Despite my own faith, I cannot in all sincerity tell a Buddhist that their faith is nonsense - I simply don't believe that's a way to get along with the rest of the planet, the pursuit of which is, after all, is our bounden duty here on this Earth. My own faith (Catholicism) has experienced many controversies, and although I hold fast to my faith, I acknowledge that it is not without its flaws and appalling mistakes. Jesus taught us to "love thy neighbour", after all. But to return to the question at hand - "who is right, Catholics or Protestants?". As an Irish Catholic married to an Irish Protestant, I'm sure you'll understand there's a great deal of sensitivity over this issue on our Island. And I'm certainly not about to tell my partner that her beliefs are 'wrong'. But what 'right' are you referring to? [[User:TadghOB|TadghOB]] 19:06, 9 February 2009 (EST)

To keep this conversation from devolving into an ideological argument, I thought I might try to clarify the original question: I interpret it as referring to the issues at the heart of the Protestant Reformation, namely the allegations of abuses of power within the Catholic Church, the selling of indulgences, the lack of reliance on Scripture, etc. Some of these are purely theological points, but I think historical discussion can bring light to the issue of whether or not the Protestants were justified in some of their more pragmatic claims. --[[User:Economist|Economist]] 19:13, 9 February 2009 (EST)

: In reply to TadghOB, one thing about Jesus is indisputable: He did tell others they were wrong, and was very clear that He was divisive rather than uniting.

: In reply to Economist, there is the issue of how to deal with the problems, and what the subsequent centuries and today illustrate. I'm not yet taking a position on the question, but am pointing out how your list is incomplete.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:25, 9 February 2009 (EST)

== Why did Islam grow so rapidly? ==

Not sure there's a lot of mystery here. The rise of Islam is well documented in both Arab and Byzantine sources. The "mystery", if there is one, is how Mohammed managed to convert a sizeable number of followers in his lifetime and how they became organised into a small but effective military force. Thereafter, Islam spread for several reasons. Initially, it was confined to Arab soldiers and their families and was something of an elite religion. But the Arabs were generally welcomed by the common people in the Byzantine territories because they imposed lighter taxes, their military levies were less oppressive and they didn't cut people's heads off because they disagreed with the Emperor's theological opinions. The same factors are reflected in the decline of the Byzantine empire, to the benefit of the Arabs in West Asia and North Africa: excessive taxation, too many able-bodied men from wealthy families joining the priesthood to evade military service, and continuous demoralisation of the population through religious disputes. Added to that was the over-centralisation of power in the Byzantine Empire, with the result that when the Emperor was out of action, there were few men with both the authority and the competence to wield power effectively. Such was the situation at the decisive Battle of the Yarmouk, in what is now northern Jordan, when the Emperor Heraclius was ill and unable to take the field, resulting in a decisive victory for the Arabs.

Islam spread in the territories conquered by the Arabs for similar reasons to the spread of Christianity in Europe: local rulers ingratiating themselves with their overlord (the Arab Caliph in this case), the prestige of being part of the official religion, the apparent evidence that God must favour the Muslims because he enabled them to win battles, and lower taxation for Muslims.

It's much harder to understand why the Byzantine Empire lasted as long as it did. Also, why did the Arabs not conquer most of the West? The post-Roman kingdoms in the West seem to have been more organised and effective than historians gave them credit for until recently.

See e.g. John Julius Norwich's history of Byzantium (three volumes but extremely - even addictively - readable). Also 'The Formation of Christendom' by Judith Herrin, the standard modern work on the interplay of Church and State in the Byzantine Empire; she shows that the church wasn't always a negative influence, as Edward Gibbon supposed. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 20:06, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:In addition to Fred's information above, Islam burst out of Arabia at a time when both the Byzantines and the Persians were completely exhausted from fighting each other interminably. There is also talk of a plague epidemic that wasted the so-called civilised powers but had little effect in the sparcely populated Arabian desert. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 20:52, 9 February 2009 (EST)

== Romans ==

''Did the Romans recognize or understand the concept of "truth"?''

What reason do you have to think that they did not? We would surely disagree with any ancient people (not just the Romans) about whether certain ideas are true or false, but that would not mean that the people did not understand the ''concept'' of truth. What meaning do you think the word ''veritas'' had for the Romans?--[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 07:18, 20 February 2009 (EST)

== Literacy in Ancient Greece ==

I don't know what the literacy level is in the USA but let's guess at 98-99%. In ancient Greece, the people who were able to read were free, male city dwellers - and by no means all of them. Perhaps 1% of the population could read. Not sure why this one is on the list of mysteries, because it isn't one. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 19:11, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

== Decline and fall of the Roman Empire ==

This is at the other end of the spectrum - i.e. a truly unsolved problem which has been a rich subject for academic research and debate. Many books have been written about this subject so you need some kind of strategy to assemble a decent essay on the subject. I would say it's more accurate to write about the ''transformation'' of the Roman Empire, not its fall. The Eastern half of the Roman Empire as divided by Diocletian became the Eastern Roman Empire, governed from Constantinople. The Western half became a set of independent kingdoms ruled by Germanic tribes. The territory of both the Western and Eastern halves of the Empire on the southern shore of the Mediterranean, plus the Levant, became part of the Arab Caliphate. All these successor states relied heavily on Roman methods of administration and law. Arguably, the ''only'' part of the Empire that actually declined and fell, insofar as the lives of ordinary people were concerned, was England.

Some of the more important causes of the decline (transformation):
* Environmental degradation of farmland.
* The permanent state of civil war for over 50 years in the middle of the 3rd century.
* Over-centralisation of power in the hands of the emperors from the late 3rd century onwards, partly as a reaction to the instability of the 3rd century.
* Outsourcing - i.e. the replacement of Roman manpower in the army by German mercenaries.
* The sapping of the numbers of young men who could serve in the army, especially as officers, because ordination as a priest or even a deacon precluded military service.
* The decline in the tax base, because priests and monks didn't have to pay taxes.
* Population pressure as tribes (e.g. the Huns) were forced westward by the failure of farming in central Asia.
* The Great Plague of c.535, which may have been even more destructive than the Black Death.
* Interminable religious disputes diverted much of the empire's intellectual effort.
* As ever in history, chance. The Emperor Heraclius, possibly the greatest general of all Roman emperors, fell ill at a critical moment. The Arabs, on the other hand, were commanded by their greatest general, Khalid ibn al-Walid, and, against all expectations, won what is now called the Battle of the Yarmouk in 636.
[[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 19:40, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

== Did the Hebrews build the pyramids? ==

Almost certainly not. If you mean the Pyramids of Giza, including the Great Pyramid of Khufu, they were built in the 4th Dynasty (c.2500BC), about a millennium before Joseph. I don't know where the Hebrews were at that time, but it wasn't Egypt. The last of the significant pyramids in Egypt was built in the 12th Dynasty, c.1860BC, a good 200 years before Joseph.

According to the Bible, which should be considered semi-historical evidence, Joseph used a chariot but chariots didn't appear in Egypt till c.1650BC.

So: no, and not a mystery. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 19:52, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

== How were the pyramids built? ==

This isn't known for sure but calling it a mystery rather demeans the excellent archaeological research on the subject. [http://www.archaeology.org/0705/etc/pyramid.html Here's a good, accessible article.] [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 20:00, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

== Origin of the name Jesus ==

Jesus, pronounced ''Dzheezus'' in English, is the Latin version of his name (pronounced ''Yaysoos''). In turn, that's the Latin spelling of the Greek version of his name (same pronounciation as in Latin). And that's the Hellenised version of the Hebrew name Yehoshua. Which, as it happens, has come into English by a more direct route as Joshua.

The only thing that might seem slightly curious here is the sound shift from ''Y'' to ''J'' at the beginning of the word. This came about because the letters ''I'' and ''J'' were used indiscriminantly by English printers in the late middle ages. By the time the letter J finally entered the English alphabet (early 17th century, I think), Latin words which the Romans spelt with a initial ''I'' (e.g. Iulius Caesar) had come to be spelt with an initial ''J'' in English (hence Julius Caesar). So then they acquired the pronounciation ''J'', as in the very common names James and John.

Again, I don't know why you call this a mystery. This is pretty well known and very easy to look up if you don't know it. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 20:11, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

== Reply to the Above ==

Fred, thanks for your attempt to solve the mystery, but I've got news for you: your spelling is atrocious and you're absurdly wrong in claiming that literacy in the U.S. is 98% or 99%. It's nowhere near that high.

The liberals who are running [[public schools]], and whom you likely support, are producing millions of illiterates each year. And it's getting worse thanks to how you likely vote. I know, you don't think it's your fault, but someone is electing these people who are perpetrating illiteracy. Fortunately, some parents are waking up to the problem, even if voters aren't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:44, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

* Spelling: I wrote ''we'' instead of ''were'' at one point in the 'Decline and Fall' section but apart from that, you'll have to tell me what my spelling mistakes are because I don't see them.
* Why does anything I've written make you assume I'm a liberal?
* Your criticism of public schools is a 'straw man' argument. Scotland (where I live) has almost entirely public education and a very high literacy rate. Likewise the Scandinavian countries, Holland, etc. Maybe there's something wrong with public education in the USA but it's too simplistic just to blame any problems on the fact that schools are public ''per se''.
* So you'll have gathered I haven't voted for anyone who's perpetuated illiteracy in the USA.
* Even so, I don't believe literacy in the USA is as low as 1-2%, which is what it was in Ancient Greece.
* Finally, are you always so rude to contributors? I hope you don't behave like that to the schoolkids you tutor. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 07:33, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

:: [https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2103.html The CIA World Factbook concurs] with Mister Ferguson -- 99% literacy (defined as "age 15 and over can read and write"), both male and female, in the United States. [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 08:35, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

::: Don't believe everything the government says, obviously. Illiteracy is rampant in many public schools, and among millions of adults in the U.S.

::::Care to cite a source (like I did)? You merely say "millions of adults" -- well, there's 220 million adults in the United States. If 1% of them cannot read, that's 2.2 million -- in other words, "millions". I'll grant, 99% literacy seems high, especially if you're looking at functional literacy (that is, able to read and write well enough to function in society) versus ability to read and write at all (my five year old niece can read and write a smidge, but certainly not well enough to hold a job!), but you act as if half the population couldn't read anything more than the cutesy graphics on the front page of USA Today. [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 10:28, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

::: Fred, I'm surprised you think my reply was "rude", yet seem to have no problem with your own postings. As to spellings, "indiscriminantly"? "Pronounciation"? Please. Also, don't try to fool anyone into thinking you're not a liberal. We are a truthful resource here and we disclose our point of view up-front. Do likewise or find another site to rant on. Wikipedia likes people who hide their point of view. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:50, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

:::: * Whoops! Tripped up on two of the trickier words in the English language. Maybe you'd better take a blue pencil to your own contributions - they're not exactly flawless either.
:::: * "Liberal" - please answer my question. What, exactly, is liberal about what I've written above?
:::: * You're very fond of accusing people of ranting, aren't you? I've seen you say that to other people. But stating the facts and arguing logically isn't ranting. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 10:07, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

Can we focus on the facts, please? [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] has brought up some interesting points - let's discuss those, rather than who is the better speller. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:12, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::This is the Fred Ferguson who claimed his spelling was immaculate, and when his errors were pointed out responded with a blase, "Oh, those are the two most difficult words in the English Language, so it doesn't really count", is it? the Fred Ferguson who thinks that ad homs are an adequate replacement for logical debate? I'm sure his points are very valid indeed! [[User:RaviS|RaviS]] 11:07, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::: And your point is...? I don't see the relevance of this to the facts of the discussion. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 11:12, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::::I dare say you don't. However, I have grave doubts about whether your 'fact'-mongering is carried out with the intention of helping to build up Conservapedia. Given the nature of these 'facts', and of your attitude, I suspect quite the opposite. [[User:RaviS|RaviS]] 12:53, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
: LITERACY: I crunched some numbers. According to the CIA World Fact Book, the population of the US is 303,824,640. 20.1% of that is children 0-14 years,w ho are presumably still working on literacy. Leave them out and that gives 303,824,640*0.799 = 242,755,887 adults. Now if 99% of those are literate, how many are not? 242,755,887*0.01 = 2,427,559. Thus even if 99% of Americans are literate, there are still two and a half million American adults who are illiterate. So we can have BOTH millions of illiterate Americans AND 99% literacy. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:19, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

::I found some interesting reading on literacy in the US in [http://nces.ed.gov/pubs93/93275.pdf this report]. I have not read it all (I have to get back to teaching and laundry and bread baking), but I think it will prove worthwhile for those interested in seriously discussing this topic. Note that it provides a more complex picture of literacy than just "literate" vs. "illiterate". I would be interested also in reading something about literacy in Ancient Greece. My layman's impression is that women and slaves were generally not taught to read, which, if accurate, would imply that there was significantly less literacy in Ancient Greece than in modern America, even if Mr Schlafly's perspective on US public schools & literacy is accurate. Has anyone found any information to the contrary? --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:34, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

::: Info on literacy in ancient Greece:
::: [http://www.historyliteracy.org/scripts/search_display.php?Article_ID=69 Book review of ''Literacy and Orality in Ancient Greece'' (suggests literacy as we understand it was confined to "a very small elite")]
::: [http://people.uncw.edu/deagona/ancientnovel/leslie.htm An article on ''Literacy and the Ancient Novel'' (suggests "advanced literacy" of 5%)]
::: Doesn't sound comparable to the modern USA! [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 10:54, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

:::: FredFerguson, have you ever considered that some sources aren't trustworth and that some things (like literacy in Ancient Greece) can't be measured? It's all very well citing a book or article, but then you have to consider where the book writer or article writer got the information from - and in an unfortunately large number of cases it comes from the top of his head. How do they know what literacy levels were in Ancient Greece? As a Greek lay dying, did he say to his son "Now if you remember one thing, remember this, and pass it on to your children....the current literacy rate is 5%. Pass it on to antiquity!"? I doubt it. It is quite likely that the figures quoted in those articles are just plain lies, or taken from other sources which have lied. Just because you read it somewhere doesn't mean it's true. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 12:50, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::::I don't think that truth is one of his priorities. [[User:RaviS|RaviS]] 12:54, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::::::Maybe, but it's undeniable that nowadays 'Professor' has become a deceptive title; people are too inclined to trust them and what they say based purely on their title, when in fact they should be subject to greater scrutiny. Too many people see a book or article by a 'Professor' and immediately believe it must be completely true. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 12:59, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::::::::::::Well, RaviS, who's being ''ad hominem'' now?! And ETrundel, simply because something can't be measured directly doesn't mean it can't be estimated. And the fact that one estimate has been made doesn't mean that that estimate can't be improved. But in general, people who've studied a subject seriously generally have a better idea of the actual facts than people who just dismiss out of hand any factual information they find uncomfortable.
::::::Can we move this discussion forward? Does anyone else have some '''information''' to contribute about any of the topics I've raised on this page? [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 13:10, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
Is it even sensible to talk about the literacy rate in Ancient Greece as a whole? I believe that (for example) Athens and Sparta had very different societies, so could be expected to have different levels of literacy.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 13:13, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:CPalmer makes a very good point. And to FredFerguson, people are trying to contribute, but you keep arguing and trying to stop them. Also, do you really believe that so-called "Professors" are totally and utterly unfallible? Have you really been brainwashed into thinking that they are totally devoted to the truth and don't have their own agendas to push? Because believe me, many of them do. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 13:17, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::So books written by academics who are experts in the field don't count as trustworthy anymore? Compilations of population statistics written by a branch of the government aren't somewhat reliable either? Then what sources should we use? WND? Whatever we decide is the truth? And don't give me any of that "open your mind" rubbish - we need adequate sources or we're just making it up.
So can we accept that millions of Americans are illiterate, the literacy rate is 99%, and the literacy rate in Athens was high within a small elite, very low elsewhere? These seem to have been established in the discussion and I don't understand why there's dissent (certainly no contradictory sources have been provided.)[[User:JHanson|JHanson]] 13:18, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::Mr Ferguson's claim above that only men could read may be a good starting point. If we can find a reliable source to verify this, then we can say confidently that the literacy rate couldn't have been more than 50%.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 13:19, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::::Given that one of the most famous ancient poets, Sappho, was a woman, Mr F may need to think again! [[User:RaviS|RaviS]] 13:23, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::::Excellent point! Now we seem to be getting somewhere.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 13:25, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::::On the other hand, reliable historical records place the number of Ancient Greek female poets as being minute, one of the reasons Sappho is famous is because she was a female poet at a time when poets were almost exclusively male. An example can be drawn with medieval Europe where, outside of the nobility, literacy was confined almost exclusively to men such as priests and the wealther merchants, but on rare occasion some women were taught literacy skills.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 13:33, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::::::The reliable source you want is ''Literacy and Orality in Ancient Greece'', cited above. Note that most poetry in the ancient world was oral, e.g. the epic poems ascribed to Homer may have been recited by bards for 500 years before they were eventually written down c.700BC. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 13:37, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::::::I'm not going to respond to the renewed jibes from RaviS and ETrundel. Let's talk about the facts. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 13:37, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::::::...he said, masterfully sidestepping their legitimate objections. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 13:46, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::::::::Mr. Ferguson has actually provided citations for his arguments. It is reasonable to dispute the accuracy of his citations, but it needs to be something more than "oh, a professor wrote those; people put far too much faith in that title." In other words, provide citations of your own, not hand-waving dismissal. [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 14:05, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

It appears to me that there really isn't a consistent answer to the question of the ancient Greeks. Spartan boys were taught to read and write, but they didn't really care for the skills so functionally they may have been illiterate still. The Athenians could definitely read - provided you happened to be male and somewhat well off. Literacy in the US is well higher because reading is a necessary function of socialization within our time. The ancient Greeks loved the arts, but they were more loved for their aesthetics than their functional qualities.

What is contestable about our high literacy rate? Millions still can't read, but that's because our population happens to be rather large. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 14:16, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:True enough. Instead of comparing actual literacy rates it might be more appropriate to compare how much access/opportunity people have or have had to learning literacy skills.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 14:52, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

TO SUM UP THUS FAR: So, the original mystery was ''How did the level of literacy in Ancient Greece compare with the United States now? '' So far, considering all the evidence offered above, the answer would be something like "While not all American adults are functionally literate, literacy in the US is much more widespread than that of Ancient Greece, and includes a broader range of the population. More people in the US have access to education than did in Ancient Greece; this is particularly true of women and the lower classes." References: [https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2103.html The CIA World Factbook], [http://nces.ed.gov/pubs93/93275.pdf this report on literacy in the US], [http://www.historyliteracy.org/scripts/search_display.php?Article_ID=69 Book review of ''Literacy and Orality in Ancient Greece''], [http://people.uncw.edu/deagona/ancientnovel/leslie.htm An article on ''Literacy and the Ancient Novel'']. Does anyone have any other sources that might be significant? Is there an appropriate way to include this in the article? I'm not sure what the etiquette is about editing "mystery" pages. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 15:08, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

[http://www.detlitcoal.org/faq.htm 47% of people in metro Detroit are functionally illiterate]. I doubt the rate of illiteracy was much higher in Athens in ancient Greece.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:11, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
: It sounds as though the rate of functional literacy in ancient Greece was a very low percentage, 5% at most. The rate of literacy in Detroit doesn't sound great but (1) it's still a lot higher than ancient Greece, which was the original - if rather arcane - question and (2) how representative is Detroit of the USA as a whole? [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 15:16, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

:: Your 5% figure is not credible. Socrates had a big following, and all of them could read and write. As someone pointed out, Spartans (not known to be as educated and Athenians) were taught to read and write. Moreover, democracy of Athens would not have originated without widespread literacy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:21, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::So how did American democracy originate if the US was (and is) plagued by illiteracy? Also, Socrates had a following amongst the other elites. As was said, literacy was high amongst the elites, low everywhere else.[[User:JHanson|JHanson]] 15:30, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::I suggest you take up the argument about the 5% figure with the authors of the books I've cited. They're the experts on the subject, not me.
:::Athenian voting: only adult men who'd completed military training were eligible to vote - no women, slaves or people of foreign origin. In any case, Athenians gathered to hear arguments orally, not to read newspapers. The same applied in the early democracies in the Viking domains, e.g. Iceland and the Isle of Man; there's no evidence there that any but a tiny proportion of the people there (mainly priests) could read.
:::I agree with JHanson's point about Socrates; yes, he had a following, but it was made up of aristocratic men who had women, slaves and foreigners to do their work for them. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 15:38, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

: <edit conflict> Looking at the Detroit data: Remember that when they refer to "functioning at the lowest literacy level", they do not necessarily mean completely unable to read. The NALS report explains the definitions of literacy level they used in their survey. They group people into four different levels. Those in the lowest level include people who can do basic tasks like identifying a specific piece of information in a news article; those people have basic reading skills. 66% to 75% of the people in this lowest level described themselves as being able to read or write English "well" or "very well". It's important also to look at who is in this lowest group. It includes immigrants, for whom English may not be their native language (25%), people with physical, mental, or health conditions that affect literacy (26%), people age 65 and older who may not have had the educational opportunities offered to today's students (one-third), and those with visual difficulties that affect their ability to read print (19%). So the whole question of literacy is much more complex than simply "can this person read or not", and the 99% number cited in some sources is measuring something quite different than the "functional literacy" rate referred to by the Detroit Literacy Coalition. (Note also that the NALS survey included some mathematics in their definition of literacy.) I am not surprised that a depressed inner city like Detroit includes a large number of people who struggle with literacy. However, we obviously cannot conclude that the Detroit rate is in any way similar to an overall US rate. As an example, the Detroit Literacy Coalition puts the functional illiteracy rate in Michigan at only 18%. This of course implies that there are areas of Michigan where the rate of illiteracy is significantly lower than 18% - perhaps wealthier, suburban areas. 
:As to Ancient Greece - while Socrates may have had a big following, they would have been men who were wealthy enough to have time for philosophy. Women, slaves, and the lower classes would not have been part of his followers. Remember also that in the democracy of Athens, only men who owned land were eligible to vote - again, women, slaves, and the lower classes were not included. I do not know anything about the number of people in each of these groups, except that it is reasonable to assume that women were around 50% of the population. Even if we assume the US's rate of functional literacy is 72% (based on Michigan's), it seems unlikely that Ancient Greece would come anywhere near this, given that most women, slaves, and the lower classes do not seem to have been, generally speaking, functionally literate. Leaving out the women alone gives a literacy rate of 50% - removing the slaves and the lower classes would bring it even lower. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 16:00, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::Good points there. The book review of ''Literacy and Orality'' makes it clear that most of those in ancient Greece who could read or write at all did so rarely and at a rudimentary level. I just don't see that the modern USA is comparable in any way. The much more important questions are, is literacy in the USA now as high as it should be (probably not) and how can it be raised?
::But on the specific subject of Athenian democracy, (1) I don't think men had to be land-owners in order to vote, e.g. merchants, craftsmen, etc, were eligible and (2) it's been estimated that as few as 1% of the residents of Athens had voting rights (if I can find a reference, I'll add it). [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 16:20, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::''I don't think men had to be land-owners in order to vote...'' It's quite possible that I'm wrong on that one. My kids and I have been reading a bit about Ancient Greece for our history studies, but we've been looking mostly at non-fiction books for kids, and I'm guessing some are more accurate than others. I'm far from an expert on history.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 16:32, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::::Hsmom, the WP page on Athenian democracy seems informative. Solon originally set a property qualification for voting but by the time of the "Golden Age" (Pericles to Aristotle, roughly), that had fallen into disuse. In peace-time, as much as 10% of the population may have been adult male Athenians who had completed military service, but that fell dramatically when Athens was at war, as it so often was (I think the 1% figure that I recalled had something to do with the time of the Peloponnesian[*] War). [* I bet I haven't spelt that right!] [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 16:39, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::::::What does "widespread mean" in this context? I seem to remember that Athens some time during he 5th century had a population of about quarter of a million. Only about a sixth of that were fully paid up citizens. (BTW, citizenship was a bit more complicated than owning land - in act it was somewhat the other way around - only citizens were allowed to own land.) The rest were children, women, slaves, helots, criminals, etc. So, if ''every citizen could read and write'' there would be a literacy figure of less than 20%. (I would imagine some literacy amongst the helots.) But let's get down to the nitty-gritty:
*Schools appeared in Athens during the 6th century.
*They taught the "Three Rs" plus Music and Physical Education from age 7.
*Teachers were generally low-paid, not particularly highly thought of members of society. They were paid by the parents.
*It was generally accepted that the average '''male''' citizen could read and write.
*Athens - at least into the 5th century - was still a generally "bookless" society - kids were taught their Homer to recite, not to write.
*There were no "institutions of higher learning" until the 4th century. For specialist learning (say medicine) an "expert" was engaged. (There were ''sophists'', itinerant teachers who went from city to city teaching certain specialist subjects and cost an arm and a leg.) A formal system of secondary education didn't appear until Hellenist times.
[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 16:49, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
==Update==
I updated the list to contain more mysteries and to reflect the sources and arguments here. Mysteries that were not really mysteries (such as whether the Hebrews were Egyptian slaves) have been removed, and the rise of Islam mystery has been changed to "Why did Islam fail to conquer the West" in response to Fred's answer and question. I am posting this comment under a new heading because it is far too much trouble to make little comments under each relevant section on this page. [[User:JWeatherman|JWeatherman]]

: Your additions are fine, but censorship is not. So I will look at what you removed and may restore them. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:05, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

== The Gunpowder Plot ==

I have just noticed the addition of the apparent mystery 'Was there really a genuine "Gunpowder Plot"?' The Gunpowder Plot of 1605 was very much real and there are huge amounts of evidence for it. Personally, I would add that before today I have never even heard of anyone who would claim that it didn't happen. The only major debates on the issue are not over whether it was real, but over certain details, such as suspected conspirators and what the outcome would have been had the plot not been foiled. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 22:15, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

: If this is the first you're hearing of the dispute, then I guess you don't read the Oxford Dictionary of World History! As explained in [[World History Lecture Nine]], that authority recognizes the dispute about the genuineness of the "plot".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:39, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

::I think this is due to a misinterpretation of the dictionary's entry on the matter. The most recent version states:

::"It has been suggested that Robert Cecil manufactured the plot, in order to discredit the Catholic cause"

::This is the only part of the entry that in anyway alludes to what you suggest, but when read in the context of the rest of the entry, and with a better understanding of Cecil himself, this is cleared up. The rest of the entry clearly outlines the plot itself and what did actually happen. The statement regarding Cecil is not saying he manufactured the plot as in 'he made it up', but is stating that some suspect him of organising the plot itself (although this is disputed by many). Even if Cecil did devise the plot to serve his own aims, and it wasn't simply a case of a 'Catholic conspiracy' then it does not change the fact that the plot was real, only that it's exact origins are unclear. There is little doubt that those directly involved in carrying out the plot were doing it for the generally accepted reasons of simply destroying Parliament and the king, in which case if Cecil was involved he was using them. The plot was very much genuine, and those who planted the powder had every intention of carrying it out. Whether or not the plot was instigated for the reasons stated by these men does not change this fact. The mystery is over the overall aims of the plot, in terms of who was the person who was really behind it. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 23:42, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

::: You attempt to draw a distinction without a difference. If Cecil manufactured the plot, a possibility acknowledged by the Oxford source, then there was never any chance of the plot being carried out. Even under your view, the participants would then have been manipulated and guided toward committing a crime. At a minimum, they would be entitled to a new trial to determine their actual guilt, and they would likely raise the recognized defense of entrapment.

::: Note that you don't acknowledge how the Oxford source has proven your first comments to be incorrect. Significant doubts have been raised and published about the truth of the story as it is recounted and celebrated.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:10, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

::::Actually, the same people who suggest that Cecil manufactured the plot, and this is the minority opinion, suggest that whether the plot succeeded or failed then his aims would have been met. The very discovery of a plot, either failed or successful would have given rise to greater suppression of Catholics in the country as was his suspected aim. There is also a suggestion that Cecil wanted James' heir, who before his death in 1612, was Prince Henry, to be crowned, as this would also have helped his suspected aims. The implication is that even if Cecil was responsible then he may well have let the plot succeed or fail, and even then as the Oxford Dictionary implies, Cecil's direct involvement is not accepted by most historians in such a manner.

::::Besides, even if the plot was doomed to fail it does not change the existence of the plot itself. The PLOT existed, whether it was likely to be successful is a different matter. The motives and potential of the plot do not alter the fact that it did exist as a historical fact, and so I think the mystery is badly worded to suggest that this is not the case. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 11:45, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

::::: Robert, you learn about the defense of entrapment, as used successfully in the criminal defense of John DeLorean a few decades ago. "Manufactured" plots are not the same as real ones. Cecil may have misled and exploited some useful idiots who never would have done something like that on their own.

::::: Maybe you think John DeLorean should have been found guilty in his trial, but the jurors felt otherwise. He was entrapped to fabricate a crime that never would have happened otherwise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:48, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Greatest Mysteries of World History

2009-04-29T18:40:49Z

NicholasT: /* "Ancient humor" */

==Dark Ages==

I have to ask: does this really qualify as a "mystery?" Most people who have actually taken the time to study European history, I would suggest, would say that there's a clear and simple answer: "No, the so-called "Dark Ages" weren't really so backwards." Significant advances were made during the period generally termed the "Dark Ages" in many fields: music, agriculture, metallurgy, and philosophy spring to mind immediately. Historians today generally avoid using the term "Dark Ages" for precisely that reason.

Should it really be termed a "mystery" just because some people continue to hold misconceptions about it? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:11, 28 December 2008 (EST)
: Yes, it's not a mystery at all. Renaissance humanists hated the "dark ages" with a passion. Now we know just how much science and culture were developed during those centuries. Not so much a mystery as a myth, really (liberals love to claim early Christian Europe was fruitless) [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 14:14, 28 December 2008 (EST)

::Perhaps a better question would be "Why are the advances of the early Middle Ages frequently overlooked or dismissed?" --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:19, 28 December 2008 (EST)

:::My question is: ''What specific non-warfare scientific/technological advances were made in Christian Western Europe between the fall of Rome and AD1000?'' [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 15:36, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::There were some important scholars, notably Isidore of Seville (6th century Spain), Bede (7th century England) and Alcuin of York (8th century England). But, with these possible exceptions, European scholarship is overshadowed by India, China and the Muslim Caliphate in this period. The first European renaissance started when Christian scholars visited Spain and Sicily to benefit from Arab learning.

::::However, the so-called Dark Ages weren't nearly as obscure are the name suggests. There was significant trade with Byzantium and the Caliphate and the most important monasteries had access to classical Latin texts. There were major building projects, especially of monasteries, particularly from the late 8th century onwards. The standard of craftsmanship was exceptional - you couldn't say it declined at all during the "Dark Ages". Witness the jewelry at Sutton Hoo or the illustrated manuscripts produced by Anglo-Saxon scriptoria. The Anglo-Saxon kings, notably Alfred, Athelstan and Edgar, laid the basis of English government which was formalised by the coronation oath of Henry I.

::::Bear in mind that the setback to civilisation was only in Western Europe. Culture flourished in the Eastern Empire, also in the Arab Caliphate, while the Tang and Song Dynasties represent in many ways the peak of Chinese culture. Also, much of the foundations of mathematics were discovered in India in this period. Universities were first founded in Arab lands (Fez was the first, I think) in the 10th century, before spreading to Spain and thence to Christian Europe. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 20:23, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:::::The operative words in my question above were ''scientific/technological''. I know of Bede and Alcuin and have had occasion to look into Isadore in the last few months. Yes they were scholars, and they shine like beacons. I am also aware of the "Benedictine reformation" and the wonders done by St. Dunstan. But these are beacons in the gloom. Was it Dunstan who had the Benedictine rules translated into "English" because Latin had been largely forgotten? And I love the jewellery of that age. I have had occasion to read much of the [[Anglo-Saxon Chronicle]] a number of times last year...and it really was a dark and dangerous age. Only Christianity kept western society together (and I know of no historian that denies the good the Church did in those times) but as for science and technological advances, really there was very little, if any at all.
In another context the age is also called ''the great interruption''. Cheers [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:19, 9 February 2009 (EST)
::::::Science and technology: almost nothing, I think. The great advances in science during the so-called Dark Ages were in India and the Muslim countries. The West only started to turn the corner in terms of scientific learning when Gerbert (Pope Sylvester II) visited the Muslim universities in Spain, c.1000 (see R.W. Southern, ''The Making of the Middle Ages''). [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 17:59, 10 February 2009 (EST)
:Yes! Now all we have to do is get people to agree to it on [[Essay:Liberal Denials about History]] item (10) under "Specific truths that history books deny".[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 18:57, 10 February 2009 (EST)

==Humor==
Perhaps this entry could be clarified: is there a particular form of humor that the author had in mind? There are examples of jokes, riddles, puns, comic figurines/images, anthropoligical notes of humorous conversations, etc. from both pre-Christian times and from post-Christian 'first contacts' with cultures that had had no previous exposure to Christianity.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 09:37, 8 February 2009 (EST)

:Brossa: Can you provide some? --[[User:AbnerY|AbnerY]] 21:51, 8 February 2009 (EST)

:I'd like to see Brossa's alleged examples also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:49, 8 February 2009 (EST)

::How about Greek and Roman comedy? that way predated Christianity. Andy, what kind of claim are you making here? on what basis would you allege that humor does not predate Christianity? it seems pretty far-fetched. I'd like to see some evidence. --[[User:DaveClark|DaveClark]]

::: You misunderstand what a Greek "comedy" was. It was not a humorous performance as meant by the term today (after the onset of Christianity).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:32, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::: Yes. It was. The intention was to make people laugh. Otherwise, what on earth do you mean by "humor"? Also.. news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7536918.stm [[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 09:02, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::: Aschlafly is right in saying that the term "comedy" did not mean exactly what it does today, but KimSell is right that the works of playwrights such as Aristophanes certainly included humorous elements such as wordplay, farce and grotesque exaggeration (often surprisingly coarse by our standards). I'd also cite the episode where the children mocked Elisha in 2 Kings 2:23-24 as an example, albeit fairly base, of pre-Christian humor.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:10, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::: As a side-note, in the past there have been bitter disputes where people have taken the polar opposite position to Mr Schlafly, ie that all humor is un-Christian. This is touched on in Umberto Eco's ''The Name of the Rose'', which I recommend.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:21, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::::: The pre-Christian examples don't withstand scrutiny. Mockery or crude comments are not quality humor, and may not be humor at all.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:23, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:::::::Sorry Mr. Schlafly. While you may not consider crude comments humorous, it is still defined as humor. you are yet to back up the claim you're making with any specific evidense. even if greek comedy didn't qualify as humor (and it does) there would still be no evidence that the advent of christianity brought the advent of humor.

::::This will be easier if you define precisely what ''you'' mean by 'humor' or 'comedy' so that we can determine if in fact it did or did not exist before Christianity. As the essay stands now, it implies that there was no ''humor'' before Christianity, not that, say, stand-up comedy as practiced in the United States today did not exist in the ancient world. The Greek comedy tradition was well-established by the sixth century BC and contains aspects of sexual farce, parody of 'serious' literary styles, and mockery of specific political and public figures. Comic performers wore characteristic costumes that included fat suits, huge genitalia, and grotesque masks that are still in use in modern comic performances. Greek vases depict these comic characters engaged in antics; I recall in particular a vase depicting two grotesque dwarves helping a third dwarf up a ladder or ramp - Three Stooges level humor.
::::Isaac in the Bible got his name from the laughter of Abraham and Sarah; does this not indicate a sense of humor? Elijah mocks the prophets of Baal, including the suggestion that Baal cannot hear his priests because he is on the toilet.
::::Egyptian papyri show exaggerated caricatures of dishevelled older men engaged in sexual relations with young women, including humorous captions (in heiroglyphics!) detailing the women's commentary on the situation. Other examples of Egyptian pictorial humor include depictions of animals engaged in human activities - like cats herding geese and goats and lions playing board games - juxtaposed with humans engaged in animal activity. A foreign queen is depicted as being so fat that she stands next to an ass with the caption 'the ass needed to carry the queen'.
::::Sumerian scatological humor is recorded (in cuneiform) on a tablet dated to 1900 BC.
::::Many Native American groups had oral traditions that include the 'Trickster' figure, who gets involved in humorous scrapes and mocks authority figures. Many of these stories also include punning wordplay and practical jokes; another dimension of humor.
::::Nineteenth century Australian ethnographers, coming into first contact with an isolated Aboriginal group, noted that the Aboriginals told stories among themselves and laughed during an otherwise stressful time - in this case, a terrible thunderstorm.
::::I'm sure that others could contribute examples from Sanskrit or Asian cultures.
::::So scatological humor, sexual humor, puns, riddles, slapstick, political satire, parody of 'serious' art forms, practical jokes, and others are all documented in pre-Christian or non-Christian cultures.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 09:40, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::: To one with an open mind, your vulgar "examples" tend to reinforce the basic observation: (real) humor was lacking before Christianity. Crudeness or vulgarity or mockery is not true humor, and Greek "comedies" were not attempts at humor in today's sense.

::::: If you had evidence of writings about humor itself, or books of humor, or truly comedic performances, or anything remotely similar to quality humor today, then that could help your argument. But the above examples, if they are the best you have, simply underscore the insight in this essay.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:54, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::: It would have been simpler for you to have simply started with the statement that no 'true humor' existed before Christianity, so that we would have known what sort of Scotsman we were dealing with in the first place. At any rate, the Japanese had [http://www.conservapedia.com/Noh_theater#What_is_Ky.C5.8Dgen.3F mature forms of theater] designed to "draw rich laughter from the audience" before Christianity was introduced to Japan.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 11:02, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::Have you ever watched an ancient Greek comedy? Because I have, and in parts, they are downright hilarious. As people keep saying, you have not explained what you mean by "humor" and so, this conversation would seem to be pointless. However, Aristotle speaks of the history of Greek comedy, including the fact that it was funny! [[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 10:39, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::::: May I ask what is the earliest example of true humor that you know of? While I respect the viewpoint that the above examples are not real humor, I don't know of any new form that emerged very soon after the establishment of Christianity.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:30, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::::::If you are so adament about so called "genuine humor" mr. Schlafly, then please define it for us.

::::::::Clearly there is a distinction to be made between things that are funny and things that are 'humor'. If it was intended to make people laugh, it qualifies as humor, whether it was funny or not. No doubt plenty of movies made by the Zuckers and the Farrelly brothers aren't funny, but they're still comedies. I don't find Groucho Marx very funny but he still counts as a comedian. What you seem to mean is that you don't find pre-Christian humor amusing. That's fine but it hardly counts as one of the 'greatest mysteries of world history'.[[User:Sam99foster|Sam99foster]] 12:09, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::: I agree with Mr Achalfly in that for something to be humorous it needs to have a certain amount of taste and refinement. For example, the article mentions a man getting hit in the crotch by a ball. While some people may find this funny, I daresay there are very few people in the world whi would call this humor. The article also mentions the Jackass movie; again, while a few people may find it amusing, I doubt very many people would define it as humorous. What do these two examples have in common? A lack of taste and refinement. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 13:26, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::::Surely someone with an open mind would find such taste and refinement in ancient Greco-Roman political satire (e.g. from Aristophanes). Humor undeniably existed before Christianity. Let's just put this behind us as a misunderstanding (or even a disagreement over personal preference). [[User:FundieMath|FundieMath]] 13:41, 9 February 2009 (EST)

For the elucidation of all: "''The Oxford Companion to Classical Literature''" describes Aristophanes as an "Athenian comic poet". Eleven of his plays survive. I know of at least one that has been performed in modern times - "''The Wasps''". I have a CD of it (2 CD set actually) Originally, it was produced in 422 B.C. and is a satirical comedy, poking fun at the Athenian jury system of the time and the state of contemporary politics. It is a comedy of manners, with elements of parody, occasional crudity and slapstick. Sounds like the Restoration writers to me. Or Voltaire. Even Shakespeare indulged in a bit of crudity at times. Modern productions, of course, update some of the scenes.

Aristophanes, who is still read and studied, is only one of many writers of comedies in those times. There was an annual competition for comedy. (''The Wasps'' came 2nd in its year.) Aristophanes' style has been copied by classically trained playwrights since...the Frenchman, Racine, for instance.

The above Oxford Companion devotes over 3 tightly printed pages to ancient Greek and Roman comedy, as well as many mentioned writers getting their own articles. Perhaps we today would not find as funny, but scenes in Shakespeare that had them rolling around in the aisles in 1600 do not quite have that power today. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 14:40, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:remove indent) ETundel, you are confusing "I find it funny" with "it is intended as Humor." I don't find Jackass funny myself, but it is still considered humour. It may be very low comedy, which it is and not everyone will like it, but the fact remains that something does not cease to be "humour" just because X amount of people don't find it funny. [[User:StephenK|StephenK]] 16:25, 9 February 2009 (EST)

The above discussion is interesting, and I'd like to learn more about "The Wasps." But certainly much of the above, such as vulgarity, is not "humor" as defined primarily by the dictionary: the "ludicrous" or (more importantly) the "absurdly incongruous."

There are dim-witted people who are amused by compulsive profanity or, as on this site, by mindless vandalism. Parody and sarcasm is also immensely entertaining to the easily amused. But this is not "humor" as defined by the dictionary, and I still haven't seen any compelling examples of pre-Christian humor. A performance like "Trading Places" would qualify, but it didn't exist.

It's interesting how strenuously some people object to the proposition that humor did not predate Christianity. Surely your minds are not so closed as to think the proposition to be automatically impossible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:48, 9 February 2009 (EST)

: Here you go Andy, here is the full text of "The Wasps" for you to read at your leisure here[http://classics.mit.edu/Aristophanes/wasps.html]. You can judge for yourself if you find it humorous. Honestly, I'm surprised that you're surprised; you throw out a proposition that runs counter to even the most basic understanding of behavior and psychology, basically saying that before Christ nobody knew how to be genuinely funny, and are surprised when people question that? Having an open mind doesn't mean you accept everything to be true. --[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 18:19, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::(EC)"But certainly much of the above, such as vulgarity, is not "humor" as defined primarily by the dictionary"
::Presumably if ANY of the above is humor as defined by the dictionary, then there was humor that pre-dated Christianity. If Aristophanes wrote a political satire ("a satirical comedy, poking fun ... at the state of contemporary politics"), would that not make it a humorous piece of work by any normal definition?[[User:Sam99foster|Sam99foster]] 18:28, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::: ShawnJ and Sam99foster, please answer my question: are you saying that you believe the proposition to be automatically impossible??? It sure sounds that way from some of the closed-minded postings above. Note, by the way, that satire is not "humor" per its primary dictionary definition.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:42, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::: No Andy, I don't find it automatically impossible, I find it impossible after brief consideration. That means I gave your question thought, and found its position to be ludicrous. The question infers that somehow, before Christ, humans did not have access to the full range of their emotions. You can argue over how humor, like ethics and morality, have changed over the years, but it doesn't stop them from existing. Rejecting the notion that humor didn't exist before Christ is not an example of closed-mindedness any more than rejecting the notion that 2+2=76 is. --[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 23:22, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::: Andy, why do you assume that we're automatically dismissing the notion? We are using historical facts and examples which you yourself seem to be dismissing out of hand without giving them any thought. Case in point, your two line rebuttal to a whole list of examples on the grounds that they are all "vulgar." Well, what's vulgar about this? "Other examples of Egyptian pictorial humor include depictions of animals engaged in human activities - like cats herding geese and goats and lions playing board games - juxtaposed with humans engaged in animal activity." Nothing sexual, crude, or otherwise off-color here, just a '''ludicrous''' and '''absurdly incongruous''' situation that could only be intended as humorous, and yet you, without apparently even reading what the user posted, flippantly dismiss it for some reason unbeknownst to the rest of us.

::::: Now, although you are somewhat correct in saying that comedy did not mean the same thing to the ancient Greeks that it does to a modern audience, you blindly overlook two other important points. First, that ancient definition of comedy--or a version of it (Boethian, to be exact)--lasted long past the birth of Christianity. Dante and Shakespeare both wrote their comedies under this ancient definition, which is why something like the The Divine Comedy is called, well, a comedy, despite the fact that the first third of it details brutal torture and punishment without any humor whatsoever, or at least none that I can recall off the top of my head. In essence, to credit Christianity with the rise of modern "comedy" simply because of the history of that word and the genre it represents misses the mark by at least 1500-1600 years.

::::: More importantly, you ignore the fact that Greeks also had a third dramatic form, the satyr play (from which we derive the English word "satire"), which was very close to what we mean by modern comedy. Fewer of these have survived, but the express purpose of these plays was to generate laughter, which is why they were named after satyrs, who were presumed to be pranksters in Greek myth. Very often, these plays simply relied on ludicrous and absurd situations to get the audience laughing. Often these were crude, yes, but not exclusively so.

::::: We aren't automatically dismissing the idea. We're dismissing the idea because it is objectively wrong and every single shred of evidence indicates the exact opposite, even when working within your incredibly limited definition of "humor." --[[User:JakeLa|Jake Lassiter]] 10:10, 12 February 2009 (EST)

Sir, since you say parody is not humor, is [[Essay:Born_Outside_the_U.S.A.!|this]], therefore, not funny?

[[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 19:57, 9 February 2009 (EST)

: Do you often speak in non sequiturs?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:00, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:: How is that a non-sequitur? You argue that parody and satire are not humor, so I point you to something that you presumably wrote as a humorous piece. You certainly didn't reject the accolades that termed it funny.

::: You argue, ''"Note, by the way, that satire is not "humor" per its primary dictionary definition."'' What dictionary are you using? [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/humor According to Merriam-Webster's on-line dictionary], this is the definition of humor in the context with which we are concerned (the others definitions concern the dated usage referring to the human body):

* that quality which appeals to a sense of the ludicrous or absurdly incongruous
* the mental faculty of discovering, expressing, or appreciating the ludicrous or absurdly incongruous
* something that is or is designed to be comical or amusing

Parody and satire seem to fit both the first and third. If you disagree, please explain why.

So, what is your definition? You've not provided one yet; you've merely said "humor is not (fill in the blank)".

I view humor as a gift from God. It allows us to get through our most troubling times. The idea that humor only existed after Christ is as alien to me as the idea that romantic love only existed after Christ. [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 20:19, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::: I apologize to Mr. Schlafly in that I charged that he had not provided a definition of humor -- he had, and it was, embarrassingly enough, the same one I cited. This topic has become long, and I missed his definition.

::: However, I still ask this: how do parody and satire '''''not''''' fit that definition?

::: Mr. Schlafly also cites the film ''Trading Places'' as an example of humor. Well, Eddie Murphy was never one of my favorites, since, particularly during the time he made that movie, he was extraordinarily foul-mouthed. But... as I understand it, plot of the movie is two people from different worlds trade lives, and we see how they both handle it, or fail to do so.

::: That strikes me as something that has to be one of the oldest jokes imaginable -- laughing at the "fish out of water" concept. I can easily imagine two Egyptian peasants, toiling down in the Nile Delta, lightening their day by laughing at the thought of the Pharaoh having to do their jobs for a while. "He'd be worried about getting his robes dirty!" "He probably couldn't even fill ten bushels of reeds!" (Of course, "ten bushels of reeds" isn't funny to us, but it might be hilarious to the guy who could pick thirty bushels before a lunch break.)

::: Now, admittedly, I'm speculating, but so is Mr. Schlafly. And I think my speculation is quite reasonable -- ancient people laughing at a concept we still find funny. He, by contrast, apparently imagines humanity consisted of a collection of dour sourpusses and/or vulgarians who couldn't appreciate anything beyond a flatulence joke until somewhere between 1 and 30 AD.

::: He also charges those of us who don't see his viewpoint of being close-minded. Sorry, no -- it is not close-minded to expect extraordinary proof for an extraordinary claim. If I said, "perhaps, until Christ was born, the sky was green and the grass was blue", you'd be justified in taking that with a huge grain of salt -- particularly if you presented me with some evidence that, in 200 BC, the sky was blue and the grass was green, and I responded with "well, that's not really ''blue'' and ''green'', that's ''cobalt'' and ''emerald''." [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 08:47, 10 February 2009 (EST)

I'm new here but I don't understand this one. What has Christianity got to do with humour? In any case, the answer is "yes" - as contributors above suggest, go and read (or even better, watch) Aristophanes. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 20:10, 9 February 2009 (EST)
::Whilst shopping just now I nicked into my local newsagency-cum-bookshop. There were Penguin Classics editions on the shelf of Aristophanes' ''Frogs'', ''The Birds'', ''Lysistrata'' and ''The Clouds''. This not a big shop....so it seems old Aristophanes is alive and kicking, if only as part of a subject at university. (I must admit that I only have the ''Wasps'' CDs because of the wonderful RVW incidental music written for a Cambridge Uni dramatic society performance in 1909, but it shows that he is not completely out of date and that his wit can be applied to modern circumstance.) The word ''wit'' is what I keep coming across regards his plays.[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 20:40, 9 February 2009 (EST)

==="Ancient humor"===
One thing I think many of Mr. Schlafay's detractors are overlooking is the possibility that the works we refer to as "comedies" today might not have been intended as comedies in their own time. The word "[[comedy]]" is English (as are all the other words used to describe Aristophanes' work: [[joke]], [[humor]], etc.), so we are in effect relying on modern translators of Ancient Greek to tell us what the Ancient Greeks thought about their own literary works.

The other day I was looking out my [[window]] and saw two [[squirrel]]s chasing each other up and down a [[tree]] trunk. Suddenly the lead squirrel stopped and turned around so suddenly that the other squirrel bumped into its head and fell off the tree! (It was only six feet or so off the ground, so the squirrel was unharmed.) I laughed at this funny occurrence — but of course the two squirrels weren't ''trying'' to put on a funny show for me; they were just doing what comes naturally to animals. Perhaps when we look into our history books and see the funny things that were done by Aristophanes, we should keep these two squirrels in mind. I think Mr. Schlafay was speaking particularly about the ''conscious'' exercise of humor — the ''intention'' to do funny things, not simply the ''fact'' of having done funny things. Nobody can seriously argue that nothing funny ever happened in antiquity... but ''why'' did it happen? that's the question. --[[User:GarthA|GarthA]] 21:48, 9 February 2009 (EST)

: That's an excellent point. Some of the ancient vulgarity, for example, was probably not intended to be "funny" any more than compulsive profanity today is intended to be funny. Someone 1000 years from now may look at dialog between two public school students today as being absolutely hilarious, even though the students are not trying to be funny now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:24, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:: The City Dionysia, which is the festival where these plays were preformed had several highly established conventions, including that four plays were to be preformed by each group: three tragedies and then a comedy. Comedies by nature are funny. While vulgar humor was indeed used, they still fit the definition of comedy ("a drama of light and amusing character and typically with a happy ending" according to Merriam-Webster). Whether people find them funny is up to them (I happen to like Scrubs, while my brother despises the show. However, he likes Family Guy, which I dislike). But the original intent of the comedies was to make people laugh, which qualifies it as humor [[User:ENorman|ENorman]] 22:45, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::That's very clever thinking, Garth. Fortunately, we have contemporary reviews of the work of authors like Aristophanes, which described them as being humorous (or in some cases not humorous enough!).
::I suspect that this debate might be in order to get people thinking outside the box while at the same time testing their composure. Of course, humor could have not predated Christianity and of course, that is not the case. But how are you going to react when someone doggedly pursues the contrary? How are you going to react when someone refuses to define their terms or moves the goalpost or shifts ground? Will you calmly research and respond? Or will you resort to liberal deceit and condescend to them. Not only should you survey the responses you see here, you should also be doing research of your own before you form your conclusions.
::If you do your research, you will probably find the evidence for pre-Christian humor that you find compelling. Either way, come back here and attempt to argue your point. Remember to stay calm, approachable and accommodating. I urge you to engage in this exercise and wish you the best. [[User:FundieMath|FundieMath]] 22:53, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:::Garth, there were no "''funny things done by Aristophanes''" any more than there were ''funny things done by'' humorous writers of modern times. He wrote plays, in verse, using the formal dramatic restraints of his day. In 5th century Athens there were two distinct forms of stage performances. There were the Tragedies, the most famed writers of which are Euripides and Aeschylus; and the Comedies, represented today by our mate Aristophanes. Never the twain did meet. They probably both developed out of pre-Classical Dionysian ritual, but by Classical times they were distinct from each other. Unlike the tragedians, Aristophanes set out to make people laugh; and to do this he used many of the forms used today - funny or fantastical situations, plays on words, ridicule of people in power, etc., He is supposed to have been very witty. He had a way with words. He was also a serious man who was concerned at perceived faults in the society he lived in, and used humor as a weapon against these things. He is recorded as saying "comedy knows what is right." He brought the powerful down a peg or two. My "Dictionary of Greek Civilisation", a book set for university courses during the 1970s, called him "a comic genius". [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 22:57, 9 February 2009 (EST)

Mr. Schlafay: Thank you. ENorman and "Fundie": It sounds like you are resorting to [[appeal to authority]] in this case. Remember that we do not actually have "contemporary reviews" of Aristophanes; what we have are ''modern translations'' of those works. I'm not even sure we would be justified in calling them "reviews", as you did, since I doubt the Ancient Greeks had anything like the modern conception of a film review or book review. "Fundie", I'm glad we agree about the value of exercise. AlanE: If Aristophanes never did anything funny, then in what sense was he a comedian? You describe him as a "serious man" who "ridicule[d] people in power"; this Aristophanes sounds like something of a [[liberal]] [[radical]]! :) --[[User:GarthA|GarthA]] 23:10, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:Who were the "liberals" - those in power or Aristophanes? Let's not bring today's concepts into describing someone who lived 2500years ago. He was not a comedian any more than Jonathan Swift was when he used ''Gulliver's Travels'' to lampoon the foibles of his age. Have you read him? The use of comedy to prick the inflated egos of the powerful, whether they be politicians, judges, or whatever, has a long and noble history, both for those on the left and on the right. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:49, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:: This is so ignorant it's just adorable:

:: <blockquote>"I'm not even sure we would be justified in calling them "reviews", as you did, since I doubt the Ancient Greeks had anything like the modern conception of a film review or book review."</blockquote>

:: What in the wide wide world of sports do you think Aristotle's ''Poetics'' was? --[[User:JakeLa|Jake Lassiter]] 10:33 12 February 2009

:Remember to do a little research! The first line of Aristophanes' ''[http://classics.mit.edu/Aristophanes/frogs.html The Frogs]'':
::<blockquote>XANTHIAS: Shall I crack any of those old jokes, master, At which the audience never fail to laugh?</blockquote>
:I'm almost positive there is some implication of humor somewhere in there! Form your own conclusions! [[User:FundieMath|FundieMath]] 23:32, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:::Well done, Fundie! [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:51, 9 February 2009 (EST)
::::Having read this controversy with interest, I am forced to agree with Mr Schalfly. There is a difference between the theatre of cruelty - sarcasm and cruel raillery - that was the hallmark of the pagan Greeks, and true humour, which to be effective needs access to the depths of ones heart and soul, a perspective that only became real through the incarnation and suffering of Christ. Similarly, the coarseness of peasant nonsense such as was available to primitive peoples - the ancient equivalent of gurning through horse collars - has no right to be defined as humour. What Mr Schlafly is attempting to describe (albeit to a deliberately unreceptive audience) is something wiser, something altogether more refined and insightful. I wish him luck in persuading the unpersuadable. [[User:RegalBruin|RegalBruin]] 14:25, 10 February 2009 (EST)
:::::Hi and welcome to CP, Regal! I'm interested in your view of my quote from ''The Frogs'' (above) in light of CP's definition of [[Humor]]:

:::::<blockquote>Humor is an act, statement, or other form of communication done to invoke laughter, amusement, or happiness in the audience.</blockquote>

:::::If you agree that Xanthias intended to invoke laughter by cracking jokes and continue to believe that this is not humor, please explain how you would like to see our definition of 'humor' changed. [[User:MattL|MattL]] 14:41, 10 February 2009 (EST)
::::::And G'day from me, Regal. Can you tell us what dictionary you use? All of mine say more or less the same things. What is refined humour,? Wise humour. Insightful humour. Can we have examples? BTW, all the things you find detestable in so-called ''pagan'' humour is found unabated in Chaucer and the ''Decamaron'' and the other medieval story-tellers. Shakespeare used it. Scatalogical humour was the rage through most of the reformation times and later. Mozart wrote scatalogical songs. The bedroom farce has always been popular - we had no senior churchmen refusing to go to ''The Marriage of Figaro''. The Greeks laughed at the dolt and so do we - hence the undying popularity of the Inspector Clouseau type character through history. Nothing changed. No one is denying that much pagan humour was coarse; but what I am saying is that it has never stopped being coarse, and I am also saying that before Christ there was humour of the kind that we find in Wodehouse or Wilde, and the one-liners of Groucho Marx or Dorothy Parker, which are clever because they manage to nail an aspect of the human condition in so few words. Aristophanes could do that.(Unlike I, who go on and on...:))[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 15:58, 10 February 2009 (EST)

::::::: It appears that discussing humor with [[atheists]] is a fool's errand because they, like the ancient Greeks, are unable (or refuse) to open their minds to what real humor is. I've defined it several times, as does the dictionary; it is something "ludicrous" or "absurdly incongruous." Vulgarities may amuse the simple-minded to no end, and so may slapstick comedy (which is all the "Frogs" is referencing in its opening line), but it's not humor.

::::::: We've learned something from this discussion. It's not just the pre-Christians who were without humor, but so are [[atheists]] today. It's unfortunate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:57, 10 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::::"Ludicrous": amusing or laughable through obvious absurdity, incongruity, exaggeration, or eccentricity; causing laughter because of absurdity; broadly or extravagantly humorous, resembling farce. All of these definitions are fulfilled in the examples that have already been stated in this discussion. For that matter, they are all fulfilled by the image on [http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/highlight_objects/gr/r/wine_bowl,_apulia.aspx this vase in the British Museum] from the fourth century BC.
::::::::::If your second paragraph is meant to imply that your whole premise behind claiming that there was no humor before Christianity was to poke fun of atheists - since only atheists are so humorless as to take such a ludicrous proposition seriously - then I am afraid that your Modest Proposal has been found lacking.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 18:48, 10 February 2009 (EST)

:::::::: Now that we've established that humor is a post-Christian phenomenon, we would do well to explore it's origins within Christianity. Do you have early Christian examples? [[User:MattL|MattL]] 17:03, 10 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::: In regards to something ludicrous or absurdly incongruous, from Plutarch's ''The Comparison of Demosthenes and Cicero'':

:::::::::<blockquote>So also we are told that when Cicero, being consul, undertook the defence of Murena against Cato's prosecution, by way of bantering Cato, he made a long series of jokes upon the absurd paradoxes, as they are called, of the Stoic set; so that a loud laughter passing from the crowd to the judges, Cato, with a quiet smile, said to those that sat next him, "My friends, what an amusing consul we have."</blockquote> We can plainly see that this is absurd. Now for the incongruity - A paradox, as defined by MW, is "a statement that is seemingly contradictory or opposed to common sense and yet is perhaps true". Incongruous, as defined by MW, describes "something inconsistent with itself". Could this possibly be an example of humor? [[User:MattL|MattL]] 17:11, 10 February 2009 (EST)

Merriam-Webster also says that humor is "something that is or is designed to be comical or amusing." Doesn't that describe Aristophanes? [[User:BenjaminC|BenjaminC]] 17:38, 10 February 2009 (EST)
:It seems that I go away an hour and suddenly I am "without humour" and an atheist,Andy. Why have you reverted to (a) being personal to someone whose sense of humour you know nothing about and who has based his arguments on basic well-documented scholarly texts in a generally polite manner and (b)decided on a definition of humour that is at odds with every dictionary and encyclopedia I can find? Whether I am a Methodist, atheist, Catholic or calathumpian has nothing to do with the my arguments which, like most of my words in this site, are based on a lifetime of reading the canon of western literature and about it. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 20:20, 10 February 2009 (EST)
:::I don't know why Mr Schlafly should have to defend himself against such an intemperate passive-aggressive assault. And if, as you claim, you are an expert on the entire canon of western culture, I should expect to find you in concordance with his ideas. [[User:RegalBruin|RegalBruin]] 11:50, 11 February 2009 (EST)
::::I didn't say, nor mean to imply, I was "''an expert on the entire canon of western culture''", Regal. What I can say is that that I, especially in this case, is that I am basing my statements on books (you know...those old fashioned things with pages that people used to read and geriatrics like me still do - I own thousands of them and have read untold thousands more.) So if I talk about the humour in Chaucer or Shakespeare, or mention Voltaire, or Beaumarchais (who? he says), Regal, it's because I've been there, mate, and done that, and have the tee shirt. (Even if, half the time now I have forgotten where I've put it!) Now, I assume you are being silly, perhaps "parodical", in your final phrase, but I am not in the mood. Andrew Schafly might be able to turn off severe sciatica with a quick prayer, but I can't; so I want to take it out on people: and seeing its not yet dawn and the rest of the family is still fast asleep, that means you! So do me one favour...go and find one reference - just one - from a reputable reference source, that "humour" started with Christianity. (And while you are at it, try and help Andrew by finding a reference for the Chinese inventing bamboo.)[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 14:03, 11 February 2009 (EST)

::The assumption that anyone who disagrees with Mr. S must be an atheist is indeed a pretty flimsy deflecting tactic. The claim being debated is not quite as bizarre as saying that there was no epic poetry before Christ.
::I'll chime in re the claim that the pagans had only farcical, bawdy, dirty type humor. I'm only familiar with 2 Aristophanes plays, ''Lysistrata'' and ''The Clouds''. ''Lysistrata'' does have a bawdy premise - the women of Greece conspire to not go to bed with their husbands until they end their war - but the play's point was political, not sexual, and it spoke on a real contemporary topic (the Peloponessian War) and addressed leading politicians by name. ''Clouds'' is a purely intellectual satire, making fun of the sophists in general and Socrates in particular. (Soc. was not actually a sophist but was apparently identified with them.) There are also a few poop jokes thrown in there, but that's no different from a lot of intellectual comedy today: I think of ''Little Miss Sunshine,'' that had jokes about Proust and Nietzshe, but also jokes about the dirty old grandfather character.
::My favorite thing about ''Clouds'' is that the main butt of the jokes, Socrates, was ''actually there in the audience'' watching it. The intro to my copy says that at the performance, the mask for the Socrates actor was such a good caricature, they had Socrates himself stand up so the audience could applaud the mask maker. [[User:Fishal|Fishal]] 20:36, 10 February 2009 (EST)
:::A lot of this boils down to arguing definitions - a fruitless argument that could go on endlessly if we had nothing better to do. What does interest me is the idea of a new form of humor emerging during or after the life of Jesus. Does anyone have any examples of a first- or second-century shift towards more refined types of humor? Perhaps "What is the earliest example of genuine humor" could be added to the list of mysteries?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:47, 11 February 2009 (EST)
::::I don't know if this has been brought up, but it appears that Mr. Schlafly doesn't find the "crude" humour entertaining (nothing wrong with that, it'd not everybody's thing) but what about wordplay and the double negative? I sumbit my favorite passage from Homer's Odyssey: When captured by the Cyclops, Odysseus tells him that his name is "Nobody." Later, after they attack the Cyclops and blind him, he storms around his cave in a rage screaming "Nobody will not get out alive" a double negative, and then calls to his brothers that "Nobody has blinded me, Nobody has blinded me." The Cyclops thinks he is calling for help, but not understanding what he is actually saying, his brothers misunderstand him and stay away... This type of humour leads directly to the modern examples of Abbott and Costello's "Who's on First?" routine, as well as the Chico and Groucho's constant back and forth in their movies "Chico:(looking at a Contract) What'sa this?" "Groucho: That's just the standard Sanity Clause" "Chico:You can't fool me, there ain't no Sanity Claus." [[User:StephenK|StephenK]] 12:15, 11 February 2009 (EST)

:::Apologies for coming in on this debate so late, but I am a student of Theatre and I would like to put my two cents in. It's certainly not a sign of stupidity to question the origins of comedic humor. Like anything else, everything has an origin and the birth of Christianity is just as good a measuring stick as any other.

:::That being said, I do indeed believe that humor as it has been defined here predates Christianity. The plays of Plautus and Terrence especially come to mind. Mr. Schlafly, you cited specifically the film ''Trading Places'', yes? Well one of the Roman Plautus's more well known plays, ''Menaechmi'' is similar in wit and predates the birth of Christ by...I believe around two hundred years, though I could be wrong on the exact number. It specifically deals with a pair of estranged twins and ultimately draws it's comedy from their machinations when the come together in Sicily and one twin's wife mistakes the other for her husband while her real husband is getting back at her by giving away some of her belongings to a prostitute. It is a play whose intention is to evoke laughter and gaiety through use of situational irony and circumstance. The "mistaken identity" theme is a widely recognized hallmark of humor and the play was later adapted by William Shakespeare in "A Comedy of Errors". This is only a single example and if it is insufficient to convince you then I can provide more. --[[User:NicholasT|NicholasT]] 12:20, 29 April 2009 (EDT)

:::: I'm not familiar with that work and welcome specific "humor" that you think is in it. I caution you, however, against automatically assuming that the play must have been intended to be "humor" as "Trading Places" is. Most ancient "comedies" were not really "humor" in the modern sense of the word, but were charming poetry. "To err is human; to forgive divine" could have been in a "comedy" in the ancient sense of the term, but it is not "humor".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:33, 29 April 2009 (EDT)

:::::As I said before, I am a student of Theatre. I am familiar with the varying definition of comedy, especially in regards to the history of the playwright. On the whole being designated a "comedy" as laid down in Aristotle's "Poetics" only meant that it was not a tragedy: meaning that the protagonist did not ultimately fall victim to his tragic flaw or hamartia as is necessary in a tragedy. Indeed, a comedy in the theatrical sense is not by necessarily "funny", however, a play intended to be funny would still fall under the category of comedy. What I provide is not only a comedy in the classical sense, but a comedy explicitly intended to be funny and, furthermore, primarily through the use of wit and situation rather than explicitly through vulgarity and slapstick. [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text.jsp?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0101%3Aact%3Dintro%3Ascene%3Dsubject here is a text, translated from it's original latin] that I managed to find. The first lines of act one, scene one have the character Peniculus explaining that his friends call him "The Sponge" because of his enormous apatite and ability to seemingly absorb food and clean a table. This becomes a bit of a running gag with lines such as between one of the characters and her servant when she sends the servant with some money to get food. She says basically "We need food for three people" to which the servant replies "Who's eating" when he learns that the list of three includes Peniculus he states "So I'll need enough money to get food for ten people then." This is just one example of a "gag" within the script. Much of the humor comes from the characters momentary on the action which is given directly to the audience, the relationship between Menaechmus and his wife, for instance is another source of humor reminiscent of "The Honeymooners". At one point Menaechmus tells his consort that he spent a fairly large amount of money on some clothes for his wife, prompting Peniculus to say sadly to the audience "And that's good money he'll never see again...". These are just some examples from the first act. The overall plot of the show, as I said before, involves what has become one of the most prevalent comedic devices of mistaken identity to drive the plot.

:::::The notes provided in the translation occasionally point out various terms that while not readily apparent "where meant to make the audience laugh". Plautus also helped to pioneer the various comedic stereotypes which would eventually become the basis for the Italian Comedia Del Arte and later would be exploited by Shakespeare and persist even today. These include: The crafty servant, The pompous, ego-inflated general, the buffoonish erudite, the elderly lech, the idiotic lover, and others. Most of these archetypes can be seen in "The Taming of the Shrew" as a matter of fact, relatively unchanged from the base of their inception. I could go further into a discussion regarding this play if you wish, though we are quickly approaching the level of research paper and most of the info can be found in the link I provided above. I believe it meets all of the criteria for being considered true humor. It is not based around physical slapstick or vulgarity, it's intention is to make the audience laugh, it utilizes an acknowledged comedic device as a plot driver, and it is verified as predating Christianity (Plautus is believed to have died around 184 B.C.). Again, if this one play is insufficient, then I could provide more evidence. I apologize for the length of this post, but I do love discusing Theatre and while brevity may be the soul of wit, I am not claiming to be witty...just that this play is witty :)--[[User:NicholasT|NicholasT]] 14:01, 29 April 2009 (EDT)

==Who was right - Catholics or Protestants?==

Can you explain what you mean by this question? It's a bit like asking - who is right, Christians of Buddhists? Do you mean, regarding Transubstantiation? Or do you mean celibacy? Or the infallibility of the Pope? Maybe you could phrase it a little more clearly? Finally, do you think it's helpful to the world to see the world like this? Doesn't every faith believe it's 'right'? [[User:TadghOB|TadghOB]] 17:10, 9 February 2009 (EST)

: Surely you don't think that just because different people hold different views that each think are right, truth therefore does not exist. If I told that some cultures believe that 2+2 equals infinity, and are convinced they are right, would that change your view that 2+2=4 and not infinity?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:50, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::Well, yes, I do? Despite my own faith, I cannot in all sincerity tell a Buddhist that their faith is nonsense - I simply don't believe that's a way to get along with the rest of the planet, the pursuit of which is, after all, is our bounden duty here on this Earth. My own faith (Catholicism) has experienced many controversies, and although I hold fast to my faith, I acknowledge that it is not without its flaws and appalling mistakes. Jesus taught us to "love thy neighbour", after all. But to return to the question at hand - "who is right, Catholics or Protestants?". As an Irish Catholic married to an Irish Protestant, I'm sure you'll understand there's a great deal of sensitivity over this issue on our Island. And I'm certainly not about to tell my partner that her beliefs are 'wrong'. But what 'right' are you referring to? [[User:TadghOB|TadghOB]] 19:06, 9 February 2009 (EST)

To keep this conversation from devolving into an ideological argument, I thought I might try to clarify the original question: I interpret it as referring to the issues at the heart of the Protestant Reformation, namely the allegations of abuses of power within the Catholic Church, the selling of indulgences, the lack of reliance on Scripture, etc. Some of these are purely theological points, but I think historical discussion can bring light to the issue of whether or not the Protestants were justified in some of their more pragmatic claims. --[[User:Economist|Economist]] 19:13, 9 February 2009 (EST)

: In reply to TadghOB, one thing about Jesus is indisputable: He did tell others they were wrong, and was very clear that He was divisive rather than uniting.

: In reply to Economist, there is the issue of how to deal with the problems, and what the subsequent centuries and today illustrate. I'm not yet taking a position on the question, but am pointing out how your list is incomplete.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:25, 9 February 2009 (EST)

== Why did Islam grow so rapidly? ==

Not sure there's a lot of mystery here. The rise of Islam is well documented in both Arab and Byzantine sources. The "mystery", if there is one, is how Mohammed managed to convert a sizeable number of followers in his lifetime and how they became organised into a small but effective military force. Thereafter, Islam spread for several reasons. Initially, it was confined to Arab soldiers and their families and was something of an elite religion. But the Arabs were generally welcomed by the common people in the Byzantine territories because they imposed lighter taxes, their military levies were less oppressive and they didn't cut people's heads off because they disagreed with the Emperor's theological opinions. The same factors are reflected in the decline of the Byzantine empire, to the benefit of the Arabs in West Asia and North Africa: excessive taxation, too many able-bodied men from wealthy families joining the priesthood to evade military service, and continuous demoralisation of the population through religious disputes. Added to that was the over-centralisation of power in the Byzantine Empire, with the result that when the Emperor was out of action, there were few men with both the authority and the competence to wield power effectively. Such was the situation at the decisive Battle of the Yarmouk, in what is now northern Jordan, when the Emperor Heraclius was ill and unable to take the field, resulting in a decisive victory for the Arabs.

Islam spread in the territories conquered by the Arabs for similar reasons to the spread of Christianity in Europe: local rulers ingratiating themselves with their overlord (the Arab Caliph in this case), the prestige of being part of the official religion, the apparent evidence that God must favour the Muslims because he enabled them to win battles, and lower taxation for Muslims.

It's much harder to understand why the Byzantine Empire lasted as long as it did. Also, why did the Arabs not conquer most of the West? The post-Roman kingdoms in the West seem to have been more organised and effective than historians gave them credit for until recently.

See e.g. John Julius Norwich's history of Byzantium (three volumes but extremely - even addictively - readable). Also 'The Formation of Christendom' by Judith Herrin, the standard modern work on the interplay of Church and State in the Byzantine Empire; she shows that the church wasn't always a negative influence, as Edward Gibbon supposed. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 20:06, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:In addition to Fred's information above, Islam burst out of Arabia at a time when both the Byzantines and the Persians were completely exhausted from fighting each other interminably. There is also talk of a plague epidemic that wasted the so-called civilised powers but had little effect in the sparcely populated Arabian desert. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 20:52, 9 February 2009 (EST)

== Romans ==

''Did the Romans recognize or understand the concept of "truth"?''

What reason do you have to think that they did not? We would surely disagree with any ancient people (not just the Romans) about whether certain ideas are true or false, but that would not mean that the people did not understand the ''concept'' of truth. What meaning do you think the word ''veritas'' had for the Romans?--[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 07:18, 20 February 2009 (EST)

== Literacy in Ancient Greece ==

I don't know what the literacy level is in the USA but let's guess at 98-99%. In ancient Greece, the people who were able to read were free, male city dwellers - and by no means all of them. Perhaps 1% of the population could read. Not sure why this one is on the list of mysteries, because it isn't one. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 19:11, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

== Decline and fall of the Roman Empire ==

This is at the other end of the spectrum - i.e. a truly unsolved problem which has been a rich subject for academic research and debate. Many books have been written about this subject so you need some kind of strategy to assemble a decent essay on the subject. I would say it's more accurate to write about the ''transformation'' of the Roman Empire, not its fall. The Eastern half of the Roman Empire as divided by Diocletian became the Eastern Roman Empire, governed from Constantinople. The Western half became a set of independent kingdoms ruled by Germanic tribes. The territory of both the Western and Eastern halves of the Empire on the southern shore of the Mediterranean, plus the Levant, became part of the Arab Caliphate. All these successor states relied heavily on Roman methods of administration and law. Arguably, the ''only'' part of the Empire that actually declined and fell, insofar as the lives of ordinary people were concerned, was England.

Some of the more important causes of the decline (transformation):
* Environmental degradation of farmland.
* The permanent state of civil war for over 50 years in the middle of the 3rd century.
* Over-centralisation of power in the hands of the emperors from the late 3rd century onwards, partly as a reaction to the instability of the 3rd century.
* Outsourcing - i.e. the replacement of Roman manpower in the army by German mercenaries.
* The sapping of the numbers of young men who could serve in the army, especially as officers, because ordination as a priest or even a deacon precluded military service.
* The decline in the tax base, because priests and monks didn't have to pay taxes.
* Population pressure as tribes (e.g. the Huns) were forced westward by the failure of farming in central Asia.
* The Great Plague of c.535, which may have been even more destructive than the Black Death.
* Interminable religious disputes diverted much of the empire's intellectual effort.
* As ever in history, chance. The Emperor Heraclius, possibly the greatest general of all Roman emperors, fell ill at a critical moment. The Arabs, on the other hand, were commanded by their greatest general, Khalid ibn al-Walid, and, against all expectations, won what is now called the Battle of the Yarmouk in 636.
[[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 19:40, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

== Did the Hebrews build the pyramids? ==

Almost certainly not. If you mean the Pyramids of Giza, including the Great Pyramid of Khufu, they were built in the 4th Dynasty (c.2500BC), about a millennium before Joseph. I don't know where the Hebrews were at that time, but it wasn't Egypt. The last of the significant pyramids in Egypt was built in the 12th Dynasty, c.1860BC, a good 200 years before Joseph.

According to the Bible, which should be considered semi-historical evidence, Joseph used a chariot but chariots didn't appear in Egypt till c.1650BC.

So: no, and not a mystery. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 19:52, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

== How were the pyramids built? ==

This isn't known for sure but calling it a mystery rather demeans the excellent archaeological research on the subject. [http://www.archaeology.org/0705/etc/pyramid.html Here's a good, accessible article.] [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 20:00, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

== Origin of the name Jesus ==

Jesus, pronounced ''Dzheezus'' in English, is the Latin version of his name (pronounced ''Yaysoos''). In turn, that's the Latin spelling of the Greek version of his name (same pronounciation as in Latin). And that's the Hellenised version of the Hebrew name Yehoshua. Which, as it happens, has come into English by a more direct route as Joshua.

The only thing that might seem slightly curious here is the sound shift from ''Y'' to ''J'' at the beginning of the word. This came about because the letters ''I'' and ''J'' were used indiscriminantly by English printers in the late middle ages. By the time the letter J finally entered the English alphabet (early 17th century, I think), Latin words which the Romans spelt with a initial ''I'' (e.g. Iulius Caesar) had come to be spelt with an initial ''J'' in English (hence Julius Caesar). So then they acquired the pronounciation ''J'', as in the very common names James and John.

Again, I don't know why you call this a mystery. This is pretty well known and very easy to look up if you don't know it. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 20:11, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

== Reply to the Above ==

Fred, thanks for your attempt to solve the mystery, but I've got news for you: your spelling is atrocious and you're absurdly wrong in claiming that literacy in the U.S. is 98% or 99%. It's nowhere near that high.

The liberals who are running [[public schools]], and whom you likely support, are producing millions of illiterates each year. And it's getting worse thanks to how you likely vote. I know, you don't think it's your fault, but someone is electing these people who are perpetrating illiteracy. Fortunately, some parents are waking up to the problem, even if voters aren't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:44, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

* Spelling: I wrote ''we'' instead of ''were'' at one point in the 'Decline and Fall' section but apart from that, you'll have to tell me what my spelling mistakes are because I don't see them.
* Why does anything I've written make you assume I'm a liberal?
* Your criticism of public schools is a 'straw man' argument. Scotland (where I live) has almost entirely public education and a very high literacy rate. Likewise the Scandinavian countries, Holland, etc. Maybe there's something wrong with public education in the USA but it's too simplistic just to blame any problems on the fact that schools are public ''per se''.
* So you'll have gathered I haven't voted for anyone who's perpetuated illiteracy in the USA.
* Even so, I don't believe literacy in the USA is as low as 1-2%, which is what it was in Ancient Greece.
* Finally, are you always so rude to contributors? I hope you don't behave like that to the schoolkids you tutor. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 07:33, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

:: [https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2103.html The CIA World Factbook concurs] with Mister Ferguson -- 99% literacy (defined as "age 15 and over can read and write"), both male and female, in the United States. [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 08:35, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

::: Don't believe everything the government says, obviously. Illiteracy is rampant in many public schools, and among millions of adults in the U.S.

::::Care to cite a source (like I did)? You merely say "millions of adults" -- well, there's 220 million adults in the United States. If 1% of them cannot read, that's 2.2 million -- in other words, "millions". I'll grant, 99% literacy seems high, especially if you're looking at functional literacy (that is, able to read and write well enough to function in society) versus ability to read and write at all (my five year old niece can read and write a smidge, but certainly not well enough to hold a job!), but you act as if half the population couldn't read anything more than the cutesy graphics on the front page of USA Today. [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 10:28, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

::: Fred, I'm surprised you think my reply was "rude", yet seem to have no problem with your own postings. As to spellings, "indiscriminantly"? "Pronounciation"? Please. Also, don't try to fool anyone into thinking you're not a liberal. We are a truthful resource here and we disclose our point of view up-front. Do likewise or find another site to rant on. Wikipedia likes people who hide their point of view. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:50, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

:::: * Whoops! Tripped up on two of the trickier words in the English language. Maybe you'd better take a blue pencil to your own contributions - they're not exactly flawless either.
:::: * "Liberal" - please answer my question. What, exactly, is liberal about what I've written above?
:::: * You're very fond of accusing people of ranting, aren't you? I've seen you say that to other people. But stating the facts and arguing logically isn't ranting. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 10:07, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

Can we focus on the facts, please? [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] has brought up some interesting points - let's discuss those, rather than who is the better speller. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:12, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::This is the Fred Ferguson who claimed his spelling was immaculate, and when his errors were pointed out responded with a blase, "Oh, those are the two most difficult words in the English Language, so it doesn't really count", is it? the Fred Ferguson who thinks that ad homs are an adequate replacement for logical debate? I'm sure his points are very valid indeed! [[User:RaviS|RaviS]] 11:07, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::: And your point is...? I don't see the relevance of this to the facts of the discussion. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 11:12, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::::I dare say you don't. However, I have grave doubts about whether your 'fact'-mongering is carried out with the intention of helping to build up Conservapedia. Given the nature of these 'facts', and of your attitude, I suspect quite the opposite. [[User:RaviS|RaviS]] 12:53, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
: LITERACY: I crunched some numbers. According to the CIA World Fact Book, the population of the US is 303,824,640. 20.1% of that is children 0-14 years,w ho are presumably still working on literacy. Leave them out and that gives 303,824,640*0.799 = 242,755,887 adults. Now if 99% of those are literate, how many are not? 242,755,887*0.01 = 2,427,559. Thus even if 99% of Americans are literate, there are still two and a half million American adults who are illiterate. So we can have BOTH millions of illiterate Americans AND 99% literacy. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:19, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

::I found some interesting reading on literacy in the US in [http://nces.ed.gov/pubs93/93275.pdf this report]. I have not read it all (I have to get back to teaching and laundry and bread baking), but I think it will prove worthwhile for those interested in seriously discussing this topic. Note that it provides a more complex picture of literacy than just "literate" vs. "illiterate". I would be interested also in reading something about literacy in Ancient Greece. My layman's impression is that women and slaves were generally not taught to read, which, if accurate, would imply that there was significantly less literacy in Ancient Greece than in modern America, even if Mr Schlafly's perspective on US public schools & literacy is accurate. Has anyone found any information to the contrary? --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:34, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

::: Info on literacy in ancient Greece:
::: [http://www.historyliteracy.org/scripts/search_display.php?Article_ID=69 Book review of ''Literacy and Orality in Ancient Greece'' (suggests literacy as we understand it was confined to "a very small elite")]
::: [http://people.uncw.edu/deagona/ancientnovel/leslie.htm An article on ''Literacy and the Ancient Novel'' (suggests "advanced literacy" of 5%)]
::: Doesn't sound comparable to the modern USA! [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 10:54, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

:::: FredFerguson, have you ever considered that some sources aren't trustworth and that some things (like literacy in Ancient Greece) can't be measured? It's all very well citing a book or article, but then you have to consider where the book writer or article writer got the information from - and in an unfortunately large number of cases it comes from the top of his head. How do they know what literacy levels were in Ancient Greece? As a Greek lay dying, did he say to his son "Now if you remember one thing, remember this, and pass it on to your children....the current literacy rate is 5%. Pass it on to antiquity!"? I doubt it. It is quite likely that the figures quoted in those articles are just plain lies, or taken from other sources which have lied. Just because you read it somewhere doesn't mean it's true. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 12:50, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::::I don't think that truth is one of his priorities. [[User:RaviS|RaviS]] 12:54, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::::::Maybe, but it's undeniable that nowadays 'Professor' has become a deceptive title; people are too inclined to trust them and what they say based purely on their title, when in fact they should be subject to greater scrutiny. Too many people see a book or article by a 'Professor' and immediately believe it must be completely true. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 12:59, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::::::::::::Well, RaviS, who's being ''ad hominem'' now?! And ETrundel, simply because something can't be measured directly doesn't mean it can't be estimated. And the fact that one estimate has been made doesn't mean that that estimate can't be improved. But in general, people who've studied a subject seriously generally have a better idea of the actual facts than people who just dismiss out of hand any factual information they find uncomfortable.
::::::Can we move this discussion forward? Does anyone else have some '''information''' to contribute about any of the topics I've raised on this page? [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 13:10, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
Is it even sensible to talk about the literacy rate in Ancient Greece as a whole? I believe that (for example) Athens and Sparta had very different societies, so could be expected to have different levels of literacy.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 13:13, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:CPalmer makes a very good point. And to FredFerguson, people are trying to contribute, but you keep arguing and trying to stop them. Also, do you really believe that so-called "Professors" are totally and utterly unfallible? Have you really been brainwashed into thinking that they are totally devoted to the truth and don't have their own agendas to push? Because believe me, many of them do. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 13:17, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::So books written by academics who are experts in the field don't count as trustworthy anymore? Compilations of population statistics written by a branch of the government aren't somewhat reliable either? Then what sources should we use? WND? Whatever we decide is the truth? And don't give me any of that "open your mind" rubbish - we need adequate sources or we're just making it up.
So can we accept that millions of Americans are illiterate, the literacy rate is 99%, and the literacy rate in Athens was high within a small elite, very low elsewhere? These seem to have been established in the discussion and I don't understand why there's dissent (certainly no contradictory sources have been provided.)[[User:JHanson|JHanson]] 13:18, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::Mr Ferguson's claim above that only men could read may be a good starting point. If we can find a reliable source to verify this, then we can say confidently that the literacy rate couldn't have been more than 50%.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 13:19, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::::Given that one of the most famous ancient poets, Sappho, was a woman, Mr F may need to think again! [[User:RaviS|RaviS]] 13:23, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::::Excellent point! Now we seem to be getting somewhere.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 13:25, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::::On the other hand, reliable historical records place the number of Ancient Greek female poets as being minute, one of the reasons Sappho is famous is because she was a female poet at a time when poets were almost exclusively male. An example can be drawn with medieval Europe where, outside of the nobility, literacy was confined almost exclusively to men such as priests and the wealther merchants, but on rare occasion some women were taught literacy skills.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 13:33, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::::::The reliable source you want is ''Literacy and Orality in Ancient Greece'', cited above. Note that most poetry in the ancient world was oral, e.g. the epic poems ascribed to Homer may have been recited by bards for 500 years before they were eventually written down c.700BC. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 13:37, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::::::I'm not going to respond to the renewed jibes from RaviS and ETrundel. Let's talk about the facts. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 13:37, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::::::...he said, masterfully sidestepping their legitimate objections. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 13:46, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::::::::Mr. Ferguson has actually provided citations for his arguments. It is reasonable to dispute the accuracy of his citations, but it needs to be something more than "oh, a professor wrote those; people put far too much faith in that title." In other words, provide citations of your own, not hand-waving dismissal. [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 14:05, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

It appears to me that there really isn't a consistent answer to the question of the ancient Greeks. Spartan boys were taught to read and write, but they didn't really care for the skills so functionally they may have been illiterate still. The Athenians could definitely read - provided you happened to be male and somewhat well off. Literacy in the US is well higher because reading is a necessary function of socialization within our time. The ancient Greeks loved the arts, but they were more loved for their aesthetics than their functional qualities.

What is contestable about our high literacy rate? Millions still can't read, but that's because our population happens to be rather large. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 14:16, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:True enough. Instead of comparing actual literacy rates it might be more appropriate to compare how much access/opportunity people have or have had to learning literacy skills.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 14:52, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

TO SUM UP THUS FAR: So, the original mystery was ''How did the level of literacy in Ancient Greece compare with the United States now? '' So far, considering all the evidence offered above, the answer would be something like "While not all American adults are functionally literate, literacy in the US is much more widespread than that of Ancient Greece, and includes a broader range of the population. More people in the US have access to education than did in Ancient Greece; this is particularly true of women and the lower classes." References: [https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2103.html The CIA World Factbook], [http://nces.ed.gov/pubs93/93275.pdf this report on literacy in the US], [http://www.historyliteracy.org/scripts/search_display.php?Article_ID=69 Book review of ''Literacy and Orality in Ancient Greece''], [http://people.uncw.edu/deagona/ancientnovel/leslie.htm An article on ''Literacy and the Ancient Novel'']. Does anyone have any other sources that might be significant? Is there an appropriate way to include this in the article? I'm not sure what the etiquette is about editing "mystery" pages. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 15:08, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

[http://www.detlitcoal.org/faq.htm 47% of people in metro Detroit are functionally illiterate]. I doubt the rate of illiteracy was much higher in Athens in ancient Greece.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:11, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
: It sounds as though the rate of functional literacy in ancient Greece was a very low percentage, 5% at most. The rate of literacy in Detroit doesn't sound great but (1) it's still a lot higher than ancient Greece, which was the original - if rather arcane - question and (2) how representative is Detroit of the USA as a whole? [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 15:16, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

:: Your 5% figure is not credible. Socrates had a big following, and all of them could read and write. As someone pointed out, Spartans (not known to be as educated and Athenians) were taught to read and write. Moreover, democracy of Athens would not have originated without widespread literacy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:21, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::So how did American democracy originate if the US was (and is) plagued by illiteracy? Also, Socrates had a following amongst the other elites. As was said, literacy was high amongst the elites, low everywhere else.[[User:JHanson|JHanson]] 15:30, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::I suggest you take up the argument about the 5% figure with the authors of the books I've cited. They're the experts on the subject, not me.
:::Athenian voting: only adult men who'd completed military training were eligible to vote - no women, slaves or people of foreign origin. In any case, Athenians gathered to hear arguments orally, not to read newspapers. The same applied in the early democracies in the Viking domains, e.g. Iceland and the Isle of Man; there's no evidence there that any but a tiny proportion of the people there (mainly priests) could read.
:::I agree with JHanson's point about Socrates; yes, he had a following, but it was made up of aristocratic men who had women, slaves and foreigners to do their work for them. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 15:38, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

: <edit conflict> Looking at the Detroit data: Remember that when they refer to "functioning at the lowest literacy level", they do not necessarily mean completely unable to read. The NALS report explains the definitions of literacy level they used in their survey. They group people into four different levels. Those in the lowest level include people who can do basic tasks like identifying a specific piece of information in a news article; those people have basic reading skills. 66% to 75% of the people in this lowest level described themselves as being able to read or write English "well" or "very well". It's important also to look at who is in this lowest group. It includes immigrants, for whom English may not be their native language (25%), people with physical, mental, or health conditions that affect literacy (26%), people age 65 and older who may not have had the educational opportunities offered to today's students (one-third), and those with visual difficulties that affect their ability to read print (19%). So the whole question of literacy is much more complex than simply "can this person read or not", and the 99% number cited in some sources is measuring something quite different than the "functional literacy" rate referred to by the Detroit Literacy Coalition. (Note also that the NALS survey included some mathematics in their definition of literacy.) I am not surprised that a depressed inner city like Detroit includes a large number of people who struggle with literacy. However, we obviously cannot conclude that the Detroit rate is in any way similar to an overall US rate. As an example, the Detroit Literacy Coalition puts the functional illiteracy rate in Michigan at only 18%. This of course implies that there are areas of Michigan where the rate of illiteracy is significantly lower than 18% - perhaps wealthier, suburban areas. 
:As to Ancient Greece - while Socrates may have had a big following, they would have been men who were wealthy enough to have time for philosophy. Women, slaves, and the lower classes would not have been part of his followers. Remember also that in the democracy of Athens, only men who owned land were eligible to vote - again, women, slaves, and the lower classes were not included. I do not know anything about the number of people in each of these groups, except that it is reasonable to assume that women were around 50% of the population. Even if we assume the US's rate of functional literacy is 72% (based on Michigan's), it seems unlikely that Ancient Greece would come anywhere near this, given that most women, slaves, and the lower classes do not seem to have been, generally speaking, functionally literate. Leaving out the women alone gives a literacy rate of 50% - removing the slaves and the lower classes would bring it even lower. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 16:00, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::Good points there. The book review of ''Literacy and Orality'' makes it clear that most of those in ancient Greece who could read or write at all did so rarely and at a rudimentary level. I just don't see that the modern USA is comparable in any way. The much more important questions are, is literacy in the USA now as high as it should be (probably not) and how can it be raised?
::But on the specific subject of Athenian democracy, (1) I don't think men had to be land-owners in order to vote, e.g. merchants, craftsmen, etc, were eligible and (2) it's been estimated that as few as 1% of the residents of Athens had voting rights (if I can find a reference, I'll add it). [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 16:20, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::''I don't think men had to be land-owners in order to vote...'' It's quite possible that I'm wrong on that one. My kids and I have been reading a bit about Ancient Greece for our history studies, but we've been looking mostly at non-fiction books for kids, and I'm guessing some are more accurate than others. I'm far from an expert on history.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 16:32, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::::Hsmom, the WP page on Athenian democracy seems informative. Solon originally set a property qualification for voting but by the time of the "Golden Age" (Pericles to Aristotle, roughly), that had fallen into disuse. In peace-time, as much as 10% of the population may have been adult male Athenians who had completed military service, but that fell dramatically when Athens was at war, as it so often was (I think the 1% figure that I recalled had something to do with the time of the Peloponnesian[*] War). [* I bet I haven't spelt that right!] [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 16:39, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::::::What does "widespread mean" in this context? I seem to remember that Athens some time during he 5th century had a population of about quarter of a million. Only about a sixth of that were fully paid up citizens. (BTW, citizenship was a bit more complicated than owning land - in act it was somewhat the other way around - only citizens were allowed to own land.) The rest were children, women, slaves, helots, criminals, etc. So, if ''every citizen could read and write'' there would be a literacy figure of less than 20%. (I would imagine some literacy amongst the helots.) But let's get down to the nitty-gritty:
*Schools appeared in Athens during the 6th century.
*They taught the "Three Rs" plus Music and Physical Education from age 7.
*Teachers were generally low-paid, not particularly highly thought of members of society. They were paid by the parents.
*It was generally accepted that the average '''male''' citizen could read and write.
*Athens - at least into the 5th century - was still a generally "bookless" society - kids were taught their Homer to recite, not to write.
*There were no "institutions of higher learning" until the 4th century. For specialist learning (say medicine) an "expert" was engaged. (There were ''sophists'', itinerant teachers who went from city to city teaching certain specialist subjects and cost an arm and a leg.) A formal system of secondary education didn't appear until Hellenist times.
[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 16:49, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
==Update==
I updated the list to contain more mysteries and to reflect the sources and arguments here. Mysteries that were not really mysteries (such as whether the Hebrews were Egyptian slaves) have been removed, and the rise of Islam mystery has been changed to "Why did Islam fail to conquer the West" in response to Fred's answer and question. I am posting this comment under a new heading because it is far too much trouble to make little comments under each relevant section on this page. [[User:JWeatherman|JWeatherman]]

: Your additions are fine, but censorship is not. So I will look at what you removed and may restore them. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:05, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

== The Gunpowder Plot ==

I have just noticed the addition of the apparent mystery 'Was there really a genuine "Gunpowder Plot"?' The Gunpowder Plot of 1605 was very much real and there are huge amounts of evidence for it. Personally, I would add that before today I have never even heard of anyone who would claim that it didn't happen. The only major debates on the issue are not over whether it was real, but over certain details, such as suspected conspirators and what the outcome would have been had the plot not been foiled. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 22:15, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

: If this is the first you're hearing of the dispute, then I guess you don't read the Oxford Dictionary of World History! As explained in [[World History Lecture Nine]], that authority recognizes the dispute about the genuineness of the "plot".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:39, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

::I think this is due to a misinterpretation of the dictionary's entry on the matter. The most recent version states:

::"It has been suggested that Robert Cecil manufactured the plot, in order to discredit the Catholic cause"

::This is the only part of the entry that in anyway alludes to what you suggest, but when read in the context of the rest of the entry, and with a better understanding of Cecil himself, this is cleared up. The rest of the entry clearly outlines the plot itself and what did actually happen. The statement regarding Cecil is not saying he manufactured the plot as in 'he made it up', but is stating that some suspect him of organising the plot itself (although this is disputed by many). Even if Cecil did devise the plot to serve his own aims, and it wasn't simply a case of a 'Catholic conspiracy' then it does not change the fact that the plot was real, only that it's exact origins are unclear. There is little doubt that those directly involved in carrying out the plot were doing it for the generally accepted reasons of simply destroying Parliament and the king, in which case if Cecil was involved he was using them. The plot was very much genuine, and those who planted the powder had every intention of carrying it out. Whether or not the plot was instigated for the reasons stated by these men does not change this fact. The mystery is over the overall aims of the plot, in terms of who was the person who was really behind it. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 23:42, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

::: You attempt to draw a distinction without a difference. If Cecil manufactured the plot, a possibility acknowledged by the Oxford source, then there was never any chance of the plot being carried out. Even under your view, the participants would then have been manipulated and guided toward committing a crime. At a minimum, they would be entitled to a new trial to determine their actual guilt, and they would likely raise the recognized defense of entrapment.

::: Note that you don't acknowledge how the Oxford source has proven your first comments to be incorrect. Significant doubts have been raised and published about the truth of the story as it is recounted and celebrated.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:10, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

::::Actually, the same people who suggest that Cecil manufactured the plot, and this is the minority opinion, suggest that whether the plot succeeded or failed then his aims would have been met. The very discovery of a plot, either failed or successful would have given rise to greater suppression of Catholics in the country as was his suspected aim. There is also a suggestion that Cecil wanted James' heir, who before his death in 1612, was Prince Henry, to be crowned, as this would also have helped his suspected aims. The implication is that even if Cecil was responsible then he may well have let the plot succeed or fail, and even then as the Oxford Dictionary implies, Cecil's direct involvement is not accepted by most historians in such a manner.

::::Besides, even if the plot was doomed to fail it does not change the existence of the plot itself. The PLOT existed, whether it was likely to be successful is a different matter. The motives and potential of the plot do not alter the fact that it did exist as a historical fact, and so I think the mystery is badly worded to suggest that this is not the case. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 11:45, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

::::: Robert, you learn about the defense of entrapment, as used successfully in the criminal defense of John DeLorean a few decades ago. "Manufactured" plots are not the same as real ones. Cecil may have misled and exploited some useful idiots who never would have done something like that on their own.

::::: Maybe you think John DeLorean should have been found guilty in his trial, but the jurors felt otherwise. He was entrapped to fabricate a crime that never would have happened otherwise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:48, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Greatest Mysteries of World History

2009-04-29T18:01:53Z

NicholasT: /* "Ancient humor" */

==Dark Ages==

I have to ask: does this really qualify as a "mystery?" Most people who have actually taken the time to study European history, I would suggest, would say that there's a clear and simple answer: "No, the so-called "Dark Ages" weren't really so backwards." Significant advances were made during the period generally termed the "Dark Ages" in many fields: music, agriculture, metallurgy, and philosophy spring to mind immediately. Historians today generally avoid using the term "Dark Ages" for precisely that reason.

Should it really be termed a "mystery" just because some people continue to hold misconceptions about it? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:11, 28 December 2008 (EST)
: Yes, it's not a mystery at all. Renaissance humanists hated the "dark ages" with a passion. Now we know just how much science and culture were developed during those centuries. Not so much a mystery as a myth, really (liberals love to claim early Christian Europe was fruitless) [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 14:14, 28 December 2008 (EST)

::Perhaps a better question would be "Why are the advances of the early Middle Ages frequently overlooked or dismissed?" --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:19, 28 December 2008 (EST)

:::My question is: ''What specific non-warfare scientific/technological advances were made in Christian Western Europe between the fall of Rome and AD1000?'' [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 15:36, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::There were some important scholars, notably Isidore of Seville (6th century Spain), Bede (7th century England) and Alcuin of York (8th century England). But, with these possible exceptions, European scholarship is overshadowed by India, China and the Muslim Caliphate in this period. The first European renaissance started when Christian scholars visited Spain and Sicily to benefit from Arab learning.

::::However, the so-called Dark Ages weren't nearly as obscure are the name suggests. There was significant trade with Byzantium and the Caliphate and the most important monasteries had access to classical Latin texts. There were major building projects, especially of monasteries, particularly from the late 8th century onwards. The standard of craftsmanship was exceptional - you couldn't say it declined at all during the "Dark Ages". Witness the jewelry at Sutton Hoo or the illustrated manuscripts produced by Anglo-Saxon scriptoria. The Anglo-Saxon kings, notably Alfred, Athelstan and Edgar, laid the basis of English government which was formalised by the coronation oath of Henry I.

::::Bear in mind that the setback to civilisation was only in Western Europe. Culture flourished in the Eastern Empire, also in the Arab Caliphate, while the Tang and Song Dynasties represent in many ways the peak of Chinese culture. Also, much of the foundations of mathematics were discovered in India in this period. Universities were first founded in Arab lands (Fez was the first, I think) in the 10th century, before spreading to Spain and thence to Christian Europe. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 20:23, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:::::The operative words in my question above were ''scientific/technological''. I know of Bede and Alcuin and have had occasion to look into Isadore in the last few months. Yes they were scholars, and they shine like beacons. I am also aware of the "Benedictine reformation" and the wonders done by St. Dunstan. But these are beacons in the gloom. Was it Dunstan who had the Benedictine rules translated into "English" because Latin had been largely forgotten? And I love the jewellery of that age. I have had occasion to read much of the [[Anglo-Saxon Chronicle]] a number of times last year...and it really was a dark and dangerous age. Only Christianity kept western society together (and I know of no historian that denies the good the Church did in those times) but as for science and technological advances, really there was very little, if any at all.
In another context the age is also called ''the great interruption''. Cheers [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:19, 9 February 2009 (EST)
::::::Science and technology: almost nothing, I think. The great advances in science during the so-called Dark Ages were in India and the Muslim countries. The West only started to turn the corner in terms of scientific learning when Gerbert (Pope Sylvester II) visited the Muslim universities in Spain, c.1000 (see R.W. Southern, ''The Making of the Middle Ages''). [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 17:59, 10 February 2009 (EST)
:Yes! Now all we have to do is get people to agree to it on [[Essay:Liberal Denials about History]] item (10) under "Specific truths that history books deny".[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 18:57, 10 February 2009 (EST)

==Humor==
Perhaps this entry could be clarified: is there a particular form of humor that the author had in mind? There are examples of jokes, riddles, puns, comic figurines/images, anthropoligical notes of humorous conversations, etc. from both pre-Christian times and from post-Christian 'first contacts' with cultures that had had no previous exposure to Christianity.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 09:37, 8 February 2009 (EST)

:Brossa: Can you provide some? --[[User:AbnerY|AbnerY]] 21:51, 8 February 2009 (EST)

:I'd like to see Brossa's alleged examples also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:49, 8 February 2009 (EST)

::How about Greek and Roman comedy? that way predated Christianity. Andy, what kind of claim are you making here? on what basis would you allege that humor does not predate Christianity? it seems pretty far-fetched. I'd like to see some evidence. --[[User:DaveClark|DaveClark]]

::: You misunderstand what a Greek "comedy" was. It was not a humorous performance as meant by the term today (after the onset of Christianity).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:32, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::: Yes. It was. The intention was to make people laugh. Otherwise, what on earth do you mean by "humor"? Also.. news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7536918.stm [[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 09:02, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::: Aschlafly is right in saying that the term "comedy" did not mean exactly what it does today, but KimSell is right that the works of playwrights such as Aristophanes certainly included humorous elements such as wordplay, farce and grotesque exaggeration (often surprisingly coarse by our standards). I'd also cite the episode where the children mocked Elisha in 2 Kings 2:23-24 as an example, albeit fairly base, of pre-Christian humor.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:10, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::: As a side-note, in the past there have been bitter disputes where people have taken the polar opposite position to Mr Schlafly, ie that all humor is un-Christian. This is touched on in Umberto Eco's ''The Name of the Rose'', which I recommend.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:21, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::::: The pre-Christian examples don't withstand scrutiny. Mockery or crude comments are not quality humor, and may not be humor at all.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:23, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:::::::Sorry Mr. Schlafly. While you may not consider crude comments humorous, it is still defined as humor. you are yet to back up the claim you're making with any specific evidense. even if greek comedy didn't qualify as humor (and it does) there would still be no evidence that the advent of christianity brought the advent of humor.

::::This will be easier if you define precisely what ''you'' mean by 'humor' or 'comedy' so that we can determine if in fact it did or did not exist before Christianity. As the essay stands now, it implies that there was no ''humor'' before Christianity, not that, say, stand-up comedy as practiced in the United States today did not exist in the ancient world. The Greek comedy tradition was well-established by the sixth century BC and contains aspects of sexual farce, parody of 'serious' literary styles, and mockery of specific political and public figures. Comic performers wore characteristic costumes that included fat suits, huge genitalia, and grotesque masks that are still in use in modern comic performances. Greek vases depict these comic characters engaged in antics; I recall in particular a vase depicting two grotesque dwarves helping a third dwarf up a ladder or ramp - Three Stooges level humor.
::::Isaac in the Bible got his name from the laughter of Abraham and Sarah; does this not indicate a sense of humor? Elijah mocks the prophets of Baal, including the suggestion that Baal cannot hear his priests because he is on the toilet.
::::Egyptian papyri show exaggerated caricatures of dishevelled older men engaged in sexual relations with young women, including humorous captions (in heiroglyphics!) detailing the women's commentary on the situation. Other examples of Egyptian pictorial humor include depictions of animals engaged in human activities - like cats herding geese and goats and lions playing board games - juxtaposed with humans engaged in animal activity. A foreign queen is depicted as being so fat that she stands next to an ass with the caption 'the ass needed to carry the queen'.
::::Sumerian scatological humor is recorded (in cuneiform) on a tablet dated to 1900 BC.
::::Many Native American groups had oral traditions that include the 'Trickster' figure, who gets involved in humorous scrapes and mocks authority figures. Many of these stories also include punning wordplay and practical jokes; another dimension of humor.
::::Nineteenth century Australian ethnographers, coming into first contact with an isolated Aboriginal group, noted that the Aboriginals told stories among themselves and laughed during an otherwise stressful time - in this case, a terrible thunderstorm.
::::I'm sure that others could contribute examples from Sanskrit or Asian cultures.
::::So scatological humor, sexual humor, puns, riddles, slapstick, political satire, parody of 'serious' art forms, practical jokes, and others are all documented in pre-Christian or non-Christian cultures.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 09:40, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::: To one with an open mind, your vulgar "examples" tend to reinforce the basic observation: (real) humor was lacking before Christianity. Crudeness or vulgarity or mockery is not true humor, and Greek "comedies" were not attempts at humor in today's sense.

::::: If you had evidence of writings about humor itself, or books of humor, or truly comedic performances, or anything remotely similar to quality humor today, then that could help your argument. But the above examples, if they are the best you have, simply underscore the insight in this essay.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:54, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::: It would have been simpler for you to have simply started with the statement that no 'true humor' existed before Christianity, so that we would have known what sort of Scotsman we were dealing with in the first place. At any rate, the Japanese had [http://www.conservapedia.com/Noh_theater#What_is_Ky.C5.8Dgen.3F mature forms of theater] designed to "draw rich laughter from the audience" before Christianity was introduced to Japan.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 11:02, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::Have you ever watched an ancient Greek comedy? Because I have, and in parts, they are downright hilarious. As people keep saying, you have not explained what you mean by "humor" and so, this conversation would seem to be pointless. However, Aristotle speaks of the history of Greek comedy, including the fact that it was funny! [[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 10:39, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::::: May I ask what is the earliest example of true humor that you know of? While I respect the viewpoint that the above examples are not real humor, I don't know of any new form that emerged very soon after the establishment of Christianity.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:30, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::::::If you are so adament about so called "genuine humor" mr. Schlafly, then please define it for us.

::::::::Clearly there is a distinction to be made between things that are funny and things that are 'humor'. If it was intended to make people laugh, it qualifies as humor, whether it was funny or not. No doubt plenty of movies made by the Zuckers and the Farrelly brothers aren't funny, but they're still comedies. I don't find Groucho Marx very funny but he still counts as a comedian. What you seem to mean is that you don't find pre-Christian humor amusing. That's fine but it hardly counts as one of the 'greatest mysteries of world history'.[[User:Sam99foster|Sam99foster]] 12:09, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::: I agree with Mr Achalfly in that for something to be humorous it needs to have a certain amount of taste and refinement. For example, the article mentions a man getting hit in the crotch by a ball. While some people may find this funny, I daresay there are very few people in the world whi would call this humor. The article also mentions the Jackass movie; again, while a few people may find it amusing, I doubt very many people would define it as humorous. What do these two examples have in common? A lack of taste and refinement. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 13:26, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::::Surely someone with an open mind would find such taste and refinement in ancient Greco-Roman political satire (e.g. from Aristophanes). Humor undeniably existed before Christianity. Let's just put this behind us as a misunderstanding (or even a disagreement over personal preference). [[User:FundieMath|FundieMath]] 13:41, 9 February 2009 (EST)

For the elucidation of all: "''The Oxford Companion to Classical Literature''" describes Aristophanes as an "Athenian comic poet". Eleven of his plays survive. I know of at least one that has been performed in modern times - "''The Wasps''". I have a CD of it (2 CD set actually) Originally, it was produced in 422 B.C. and is a satirical comedy, poking fun at the Athenian jury system of the time and the state of contemporary politics. It is a comedy of manners, with elements of parody, occasional crudity and slapstick. Sounds like the Restoration writers to me. Or Voltaire. Even Shakespeare indulged in a bit of crudity at times. Modern productions, of course, update some of the scenes.

Aristophanes, who is still read and studied, is only one of many writers of comedies in those times. There was an annual competition for comedy. (''The Wasps'' came 2nd in its year.) Aristophanes' style has been copied by classically trained playwrights since...the Frenchman, Racine, for instance.

The above Oxford Companion devotes over 3 tightly printed pages to ancient Greek and Roman comedy, as well as many mentioned writers getting their own articles. Perhaps we today would not find as funny, but scenes in Shakespeare that had them rolling around in the aisles in 1600 do not quite have that power today. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 14:40, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:remove indent) ETundel, you are confusing "I find it funny" with "it is intended as Humor." I don't find Jackass funny myself, but it is still considered humour. It may be very low comedy, which it is and not everyone will like it, but the fact remains that something does not cease to be "humour" just because X amount of people don't find it funny. [[User:StephenK|StephenK]] 16:25, 9 February 2009 (EST)

The above discussion is interesting, and I'd like to learn more about "The Wasps." But certainly much of the above, such as vulgarity, is not "humor" as defined primarily by the dictionary: the "ludicrous" or (more importantly) the "absurdly incongruous."

There are dim-witted people who are amused by compulsive profanity or, as on this site, by mindless vandalism. Parody and sarcasm is also immensely entertaining to the easily amused. But this is not "humor" as defined by the dictionary, and I still haven't seen any compelling examples of pre-Christian humor. A performance like "Trading Places" would qualify, but it didn't exist.

It's interesting how strenuously some people object to the proposition that humor did not predate Christianity. Surely your minds are not so closed as to think the proposition to be automatically impossible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:48, 9 February 2009 (EST)

: Here you go Andy, here is the full text of "The Wasps" for you to read at your leisure here[http://classics.mit.edu/Aristophanes/wasps.html]. You can judge for yourself if you find it humorous. Honestly, I'm surprised that you're surprised; you throw out a proposition that runs counter to even the most basic understanding of behavior and psychology, basically saying that before Christ nobody knew how to be genuinely funny, and are surprised when people question that? Having an open mind doesn't mean you accept everything to be true. --[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 18:19, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::(EC)"But certainly much of the above, such as vulgarity, is not "humor" as defined primarily by the dictionary"
::Presumably if ANY of the above is humor as defined by the dictionary, then there was humor that pre-dated Christianity. If Aristophanes wrote a political satire ("a satirical comedy, poking fun ... at the state of contemporary politics"), would that not make it a humorous piece of work by any normal definition?[[User:Sam99foster|Sam99foster]] 18:28, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::: ShawnJ and Sam99foster, please answer my question: are you saying that you believe the proposition to be automatically impossible??? It sure sounds that way from some of the closed-minded postings above. Note, by the way, that satire is not "humor" per its primary dictionary definition.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:42, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::: No Andy, I don't find it automatically impossible, I find it impossible after brief consideration. That means I gave your question thought, and found its position to be ludicrous. The question infers that somehow, before Christ, humans did not have access to the full range of their emotions. You can argue over how humor, like ethics and morality, have changed over the years, but it doesn't stop them from existing. Rejecting the notion that humor didn't exist before Christ is not an example of closed-mindedness any more than rejecting the notion that 2+2=76 is. --[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 23:22, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::: Andy, why do you assume that we're automatically dismissing the notion? We are using historical facts and examples which you yourself seem to be dismissing out of hand without giving them any thought. Case in point, your two line rebuttal to a whole list of examples on the grounds that they are all "vulgar." Well, what's vulgar about this? "Other examples of Egyptian pictorial humor include depictions of animals engaged in human activities - like cats herding geese and goats and lions playing board games - juxtaposed with humans engaged in animal activity." Nothing sexual, crude, or otherwise off-color here, just a '''ludicrous''' and '''absurdly incongruous''' situation that could only be intended as humorous, and yet you, without apparently even reading what the user posted, flippantly dismiss it for some reason unbeknownst to the rest of us.

::::: Now, although you are somewhat correct in saying that comedy did not mean the same thing to the ancient Greeks that it does to a modern audience, you blindly overlook two other important points. First, that ancient definition of comedy--or a version of it (Boethian, to be exact)--lasted long past the birth of Christianity. Dante and Shakespeare both wrote their comedies under this ancient definition, which is why something like the The Divine Comedy is called, well, a comedy, despite the fact that the first third of it details brutal torture and punishment without any humor whatsoever, or at least none that I can recall off the top of my head. In essence, to credit Christianity with the rise of modern "comedy" simply because of the history of that word and the genre it represents misses the mark by at least 1500-1600 years.

::::: More importantly, you ignore the fact that Greeks also had a third dramatic form, the satyr play (from which we derive the English word "satire"), which was very close to what we mean by modern comedy. Fewer of these have survived, but the express purpose of these plays was to generate laughter, which is why they were named after satyrs, who were presumed to be pranksters in Greek myth. Very often, these plays simply relied on ludicrous and absurd situations to get the audience laughing. Often these were crude, yes, but not exclusively so.

::::: We aren't automatically dismissing the idea. We're dismissing the idea because it is objectively wrong and every single shred of evidence indicates the exact opposite, even when working within your incredibly limited definition of "humor." --[[User:JakeLa|Jake Lassiter]] 10:10, 12 February 2009 (EST)

Sir, since you say parody is not humor, is [[Essay:Born_Outside_the_U.S.A.!|this]], therefore, not funny?

[[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 19:57, 9 February 2009 (EST)

: Do you often speak in non sequiturs?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:00, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:: How is that a non-sequitur? You argue that parody and satire are not humor, so I point you to something that you presumably wrote as a humorous piece. You certainly didn't reject the accolades that termed it funny.

::: You argue, ''"Note, by the way, that satire is not "humor" per its primary dictionary definition."'' What dictionary are you using? [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/humor According to Merriam-Webster's on-line dictionary], this is the definition of humor in the context with which we are concerned (the others definitions concern the dated usage referring to the human body):

* that quality which appeals to a sense of the ludicrous or absurdly incongruous
* the mental faculty of discovering, expressing, or appreciating the ludicrous or absurdly incongruous
* something that is or is designed to be comical or amusing

Parody and satire seem to fit both the first and third. If you disagree, please explain why.

So, what is your definition? You've not provided one yet; you've merely said "humor is not (fill in the blank)".

I view humor as a gift from God. It allows us to get through our most troubling times. The idea that humor only existed after Christ is as alien to me as the idea that romantic love only existed after Christ. [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 20:19, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::: I apologize to Mr. Schlafly in that I charged that he had not provided a definition of humor -- he had, and it was, embarrassingly enough, the same one I cited. This topic has become long, and I missed his definition.

::: However, I still ask this: how do parody and satire '''''not''''' fit that definition?

::: Mr. Schlafly also cites the film ''Trading Places'' as an example of humor. Well, Eddie Murphy was never one of my favorites, since, particularly during the time he made that movie, he was extraordinarily foul-mouthed. But... as I understand it, plot of the movie is two people from different worlds trade lives, and we see how they both handle it, or fail to do so.

::: That strikes me as something that has to be one of the oldest jokes imaginable -- laughing at the "fish out of water" concept. I can easily imagine two Egyptian peasants, toiling down in the Nile Delta, lightening their day by laughing at the thought of the Pharaoh having to do their jobs for a while. "He'd be worried about getting his robes dirty!" "He probably couldn't even fill ten bushels of reeds!" (Of course, "ten bushels of reeds" isn't funny to us, but it might be hilarious to the guy who could pick thirty bushels before a lunch break.)

::: Now, admittedly, I'm speculating, but so is Mr. Schlafly. And I think my speculation is quite reasonable -- ancient people laughing at a concept we still find funny. He, by contrast, apparently imagines humanity consisted of a collection of dour sourpusses and/or vulgarians who couldn't appreciate anything beyond a flatulence joke until somewhere between 1 and 30 AD.

::: He also charges those of us who don't see his viewpoint of being close-minded. Sorry, no -- it is not close-minded to expect extraordinary proof for an extraordinary claim. If I said, "perhaps, until Christ was born, the sky was green and the grass was blue", you'd be justified in taking that with a huge grain of salt -- particularly if you presented me with some evidence that, in 200 BC, the sky was blue and the grass was green, and I responded with "well, that's not really ''blue'' and ''green'', that's ''cobalt'' and ''emerald''." [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 08:47, 10 February 2009 (EST)

I'm new here but I don't understand this one. What has Christianity got to do with humour? In any case, the answer is "yes" - as contributors above suggest, go and read (or even better, watch) Aristophanes. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 20:10, 9 February 2009 (EST)
::Whilst shopping just now I nicked into my local newsagency-cum-bookshop. There were Penguin Classics editions on the shelf of Aristophanes' ''Frogs'', ''The Birds'', ''Lysistrata'' and ''The Clouds''. This not a big shop....so it seems old Aristophanes is alive and kicking, if only as part of a subject at university. (I must admit that I only have the ''Wasps'' CDs because of the wonderful RVW incidental music written for a Cambridge Uni dramatic society performance in 1909, but it shows that he is not completely out of date and that his wit can be applied to modern circumstance.) The word ''wit'' is what I keep coming across regards his plays.[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 20:40, 9 February 2009 (EST)

==="Ancient humor"===
One thing I think many of Mr. Schlafay's detractors are overlooking is the possibility that the works we refer to as "comedies" today might not have been intended as comedies in their own time. The word "[[comedy]]" is English (as are all the other words used to describe Aristophanes' work: [[joke]], [[humor]], etc.), so we are in effect relying on modern translators of Ancient Greek to tell us what the Ancient Greeks thought about their own literary works.

The other day I was looking out my [[window]] and saw two [[squirrel]]s chasing each other up and down a [[tree]] trunk. Suddenly the lead squirrel stopped and turned around so suddenly that the other squirrel bumped into its head and fell off the tree! (It was only six feet or so off the ground, so the squirrel was unharmed.) I laughed at this funny occurrence — but of course the two squirrels weren't ''trying'' to put on a funny show for me; they were just doing what comes naturally to animals. Perhaps when we look into our history books and see the funny things that were done by Aristophanes, we should keep these two squirrels in mind. I think Mr. Schlafay was speaking particularly about the ''conscious'' exercise of humor — the ''intention'' to do funny things, not simply the ''fact'' of having done funny things. Nobody can seriously argue that nothing funny ever happened in antiquity... but ''why'' did it happen? that's the question. --[[User:GarthA|GarthA]] 21:48, 9 February 2009 (EST)

: That's an excellent point. Some of the ancient vulgarity, for example, was probably not intended to be "funny" any more than compulsive profanity today is intended to be funny. Someone 1000 years from now may look at dialog between two public school students today as being absolutely hilarious, even though the students are not trying to be funny now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:24, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:: The City Dionysia, which is the festival where these plays were preformed had several highly established conventions, including that four plays were to be preformed by each group: three tragedies and then a comedy. Comedies by nature are funny. While vulgar humor was indeed used, they still fit the definition of comedy ("a drama of light and amusing character and typically with a happy ending" according to Merriam-Webster). Whether people find them funny is up to them (I happen to like Scrubs, while my brother despises the show. However, he likes Family Guy, which I dislike). But the original intent of the comedies was to make people laugh, which qualifies it as humor [[User:ENorman|ENorman]] 22:45, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::That's very clever thinking, Garth. Fortunately, we have contemporary reviews of the work of authors like Aristophanes, which described them as being humorous (or in some cases not humorous enough!).
::I suspect that this debate might be in order to get people thinking outside the box while at the same time testing their composure. Of course, humor could have not predated Christianity and of course, that is not the case. But how are you going to react when someone doggedly pursues the contrary? How are you going to react when someone refuses to define their terms or moves the goalpost or shifts ground? Will you calmly research and respond? Or will you resort to liberal deceit and condescend to them. Not only should you survey the responses you see here, you should also be doing research of your own before you form your conclusions.
::If you do your research, you will probably find the evidence for pre-Christian humor that you find compelling. Either way, come back here and attempt to argue your point. Remember to stay calm, approachable and accommodating. I urge you to engage in this exercise and wish you the best. [[User:FundieMath|FundieMath]] 22:53, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:::Garth, there were no "''funny things done by Aristophanes''" any more than there were ''funny things done by'' humorous writers of modern times. He wrote plays, in verse, using the formal dramatic restraints of his day. In 5th century Athens there were two distinct forms of stage performances. There were the Tragedies, the most famed writers of which are Euripides and Aeschylus; and the Comedies, represented today by our mate Aristophanes. Never the twain did meet. They probably both developed out of pre-Classical Dionysian ritual, but by Classical times they were distinct from each other. Unlike the tragedians, Aristophanes set out to make people laugh; and to do this he used many of the forms used today - funny or fantastical situations, plays on words, ridicule of people in power, etc., He is supposed to have been very witty. He had a way with words. He was also a serious man who was concerned at perceived faults in the society he lived in, and used humor as a weapon against these things. He is recorded as saying "comedy knows what is right." He brought the powerful down a peg or two. My "Dictionary of Greek Civilisation", a book set for university courses during the 1970s, called him "a comic genius". [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 22:57, 9 February 2009 (EST)

Mr. Schlafay: Thank you. ENorman and "Fundie": It sounds like you are resorting to [[appeal to authority]] in this case. Remember that we do not actually have "contemporary reviews" of Aristophanes; what we have are ''modern translations'' of those works. I'm not even sure we would be justified in calling them "reviews", as you did, since I doubt the Ancient Greeks had anything like the modern conception of a film review or book review. "Fundie", I'm glad we agree about the value of exercise. AlanE: If Aristophanes never did anything funny, then in what sense was he a comedian? You describe him as a "serious man" who "ridicule[d] people in power"; this Aristophanes sounds like something of a [[liberal]] [[radical]]! :) --[[User:GarthA|GarthA]] 23:10, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:Who were the "liberals" - those in power or Aristophanes? Let's not bring today's concepts into describing someone who lived 2500years ago. He was not a comedian any more than Jonathan Swift was when he used ''Gulliver's Travels'' to lampoon the foibles of his age. Have you read him? The use of comedy to prick the inflated egos of the powerful, whether they be politicians, judges, or whatever, has a long and noble history, both for those on the left and on the right. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:49, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:: This is so ignorant it's just adorable:

:: <blockquote>"I'm not even sure we would be justified in calling them "reviews", as you did, since I doubt the Ancient Greeks had anything like the modern conception of a film review or book review."</blockquote>

:: What in the wide wide world of sports do you think Aristotle's ''Poetics'' was? --[[User:JakeLa|Jake Lassiter]] 10:33 12 February 2009

:Remember to do a little research! The first line of Aristophanes' ''[http://classics.mit.edu/Aristophanes/frogs.html The Frogs]'':
::<blockquote>XANTHIAS: Shall I crack any of those old jokes, master, At which the audience never fail to laugh?</blockquote>
:I'm almost positive there is some implication of humor somewhere in there! Form your own conclusions! [[User:FundieMath|FundieMath]] 23:32, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:::Well done, Fundie! [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:51, 9 February 2009 (EST)
::::Having read this controversy with interest, I am forced to agree with Mr Schalfly. There is a difference between the theatre of cruelty - sarcasm and cruel raillery - that was the hallmark of the pagan Greeks, and true humour, which to be effective needs access to the depths of ones heart and soul, a perspective that only became real through the incarnation and suffering of Christ. Similarly, the coarseness of peasant nonsense such as was available to primitive peoples - the ancient equivalent of gurning through horse collars - has no right to be defined as humour. What Mr Schlafly is attempting to describe (albeit to a deliberately unreceptive audience) is something wiser, something altogether more refined and insightful. I wish him luck in persuading the unpersuadable. [[User:RegalBruin|RegalBruin]] 14:25, 10 February 2009 (EST)
:::::Hi and welcome to CP, Regal! I'm interested in your view of my quote from ''The Frogs'' (above) in light of CP's definition of [[Humor]]:

:::::<blockquote>Humor is an act, statement, or other form of communication done to invoke laughter, amusement, or happiness in the audience.</blockquote>

:::::If you agree that Xanthias intended to invoke laughter by cracking jokes and continue to believe that this is not humor, please explain how you would like to see our definition of 'humor' changed. [[User:MattL|MattL]] 14:41, 10 February 2009 (EST)
::::::And G'day from me, Regal. Can you tell us what dictionary you use? All of mine say more or less the same things. What is refined humour,? Wise humour. Insightful humour. Can we have examples? BTW, all the things you find detestable in so-called ''pagan'' humour is found unabated in Chaucer and the ''Decamaron'' and the other medieval story-tellers. Shakespeare used it. Scatalogical humour was the rage through most of the reformation times and later. Mozart wrote scatalogical songs. The bedroom farce has always been popular - we had no senior churchmen refusing to go to ''The Marriage of Figaro''. The Greeks laughed at the dolt and so do we - hence the undying popularity of the Inspector Clouseau type character through history. Nothing changed. No one is denying that much pagan humour was coarse; but what I am saying is that it has never stopped being coarse, and I am also saying that before Christ there was humour of the kind that we find in Wodehouse or Wilde, and the one-liners of Groucho Marx or Dorothy Parker, which are clever because they manage to nail an aspect of the human condition in so few words. Aristophanes could do that.(Unlike I, who go on and on...:))[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 15:58, 10 February 2009 (EST)

::::::: It appears that discussing humor with [[atheists]] is a fool's errand because they, like the ancient Greeks, are unable (or refuse) to open their minds to what real humor is. I've defined it several times, as does the dictionary; it is something "ludicrous" or "absurdly incongruous." Vulgarities may amuse the simple-minded to no end, and so may slapstick comedy (which is all the "Frogs" is referencing in its opening line), but it's not humor.

::::::: We've learned something from this discussion. It's not just the pre-Christians who were without humor, but so are [[atheists]] today. It's unfortunate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:57, 10 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::::"Ludicrous": amusing or laughable through obvious absurdity, incongruity, exaggeration, or eccentricity; causing laughter because of absurdity; broadly or extravagantly humorous, resembling farce. All of these definitions are fulfilled in the examples that have already been stated in this discussion. For that matter, they are all fulfilled by the image on [http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/highlight_objects/gr/r/wine_bowl,_apulia.aspx this vase in the British Museum] from the fourth century BC.
::::::::::If your second paragraph is meant to imply that your whole premise behind claiming that there was no humor before Christianity was to poke fun of atheists - since only atheists are so humorless as to take such a ludicrous proposition seriously - then I am afraid that your Modest Proposal has been found lacking.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 18:48, 10 February 2009 (EST)

:::::::: Now that we've established that humor is a post-Christian phenomenon, we would do well to explore it's origins within Christianity. Do you have early Christian examples? [[User:MattL|MattL]] 17:03, 10 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::: In regards to something ludicrous or absurdly incongruous, from Plutarch's ''The Comparison of Demosthenes and Cicero'':

:::::::::<blockquote>So also we are told that when Cicero, being consul, undertook the defence of Murena against Cato's prosecution, by way of bantering Cato, he made a long series of jokes upon the absurd paradoxes, as they are called, of the Stoic set; so that a loud laughter passing from the crowd to the judges, Cato, with a quiet smile, said to those that sat next him, "My friends, what an amusing consul we have."</blockquote> We can plainly see that this is absurd. Now for the incongruity - A paradox, as defined by MW, is "a statement that is seemingly contradictory or opposed to common sense and yet is perhaps true". Incongruous, as defined by MW, describes "something inconsistent with itself". Could this possibly be an example of humor? [[User:MattL|MattL]] 17:11, 10 February 2009 (EST)

Merriam-Webster also says that humor is "something that is or is designed to be comical or amusing." Doesn't that describe Aristophanes? [[User:BenjaminC|BenjaminC]] 17:38, 10 February 2009 (EST)
:It seems that I go away an hour and suddenly I am "without humour" and an atheist,Andy. Why have you reverted to (a) being personal to someone whose sense of humour you know nothing about and who has based his arguments on basic well-documented scholarly texts in a generally polite manner and (b)decided on a definition of humour that is at odds with every dictionary and encyclopedia I can find? Whether I am a Methodist, atheist, Catholic or calathumpian has nothing to do with the my arguments which, like most of my words in this site, are based on a lifetime of reading the canon of western literature and about it. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 20:20, 10 February 2009 (EST)
:::I don't know why Mr Schlafly should have to defend himself against such an intemperate passive-aggressive assault. And if, as you claim, you are an expert on the entire canon of western culture, I should expect to find you in concordance with his ideas. [[User:RegalBruin|RegalBruin]] 11:50, 11 February 2009 (EST)
::::I didn't say, nor mean to imply, I was "''an expert on the entire canon of western culture''", Regal. What I can say is that that I, especially in this case, is that I am basing my statements on books (you know...those old fashioned things with pages that people used to read and geriatrics like me still do - I own thousands of them and have read untold thousands more.) So if I talk about the humour in Chaucer or Shakespeare, or mention Voltaire, or Beaumarchais (who? he says), Regal, it's because I've been there, mate, and done that, and have the tee shirt. (Even if, half the time now I have forgotten where I've put it!) Now, I assume you are being silly, perhaps "parodical", in your final phrase, but I am not in the mood. Andrew Schafly might be able to turn off severe sciatica with a quick prayer, but I can't; so I want to take it out on people: and seeing its not yet dawn and the rest of the family is still fast asleep, that means you! So do me one favour...go and find one reference - just one - from a reputable reference source, that "humour" started with Christianity. (And while you are at it, try and help Andrew by finding a reference for the Chinese inventing bamboo.)[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 14:03, 11 February 2009 (EST)

::The assumption that anyone who disagrees with Mr. S must be an atheist is indeed a pretty flimsy deflecting tactic. The claim being debated is not quite as bizarre as saying that there was no epic poetry before Christ.
::I'll chime in re the claim that the pagans had only farcical, bawdy, dirty type humor. I'm only familiar with 2 Aristophanes plays, ''Lysistrata'' and ''The Clouds''. ''Lysistrata'' does have a bawdy premise - the women of Greece conspire to not go to bed with their husbands until they end their war - but the play's point was political, not sexual, and it spoke on a real contemporary topic (the Peloponessian War) and addressed leading politicians by name. ''Clouds'' is a purely intellectual satire, making fun of the sophists in general and Socrates in particular. (Soc. was not actually a sophist but was apparently identified with them.) There are also a few poop jokes thrown in there, but that's no different from a lot of intellectual comedy today: I think of ''Little Miss Sunshine,'' that had jokes about Proust and Nietzshe, but also jokes about the dirty old grandfather character.
::My favorite thing about ''Clouds'' is that the main butt of the jokes, Socrates, was ''actually there in the audience'' watching it. The intro to my copy says that at the performance, the mask for the Socrates actor was such a good caricature, they had Socrates himself stand up so the audience could applaud the mask maker. [[User:Fishal|Fishal]] 20:36, 10 February 2009 (EST)
:::A lot of this boils down to arguing definitions - a fruitless argument that could go on endlessly if we had nothing better to do. What does interest me is the idea of a new form of humor emerging during or after the life of Jesus. Does anyone have any examples of a first- or second-century shift towards more refined types of humor? Perhaps "What is the earliest example of genuine humor" could be added to the list of mysteries?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:47, 11 February 2009 (EST)
::::I don't know if this has been brought up, but it appears that Mr. Schlafly doesn't find the "crude" humour entertaining (nothing wrong with that, it'd not everybody's thing) but what about wordplay and the double negative? I sumbit my favorite passage from Homer's Odyssey: When captured by the Cyclops, Odysseus tells him that his name is "Nobody." Later, after they attack the Cyclops and blind him, he storms around his cave in a rage screaming "Nobody will not get out alive" a double negative, and then calls to his brothers that "Nobody has blinded me, Nobody has blinded me." The Cyclops thinks he is calling for help, but not understanding what he is actually saying, his brothers misunderstand him and stay away... This type of humour leads directly to the modern examples of Abbott and Costello's "Who's on First?" routine, as well as the Chico and Groucho's constant back and forth in their movies "Chico:(looking at a Contract) What'sa this?" "Groucho: That's just the standard Sanity Clause" "Chico:You can't fool me, there ain't no Sanity Claus." [[User:StephenK|StephenK]] 12:15, 11 February 2009 (EST)

:::Apologies for coming in on this debate so late, but I am a student of Theatre and I would like to put my two cents in. It's certainly not a sign of stupidity to question the origins of comedic humor. Like anything else, everything has an origin and the birth of Christianity is just as good a measuring stick as any other.

:::That being said, I do indeed believe that humor as it has been defined here predates Christianity. The plays of Plautus and Terrence especially come to mind. Mr. Schlafly, you cited specifically the film ''Trading Places'', yes? Well one of the Roman Plautus's more well known plays, ''Menaechmi'' is similar in wit and predates the birth of Christ by...I believe around two hundred years, though I could be wrong on the exact number. It specifically deals with a pair of estranged twins and ultimately draws it's comedy from their machinations when the come together in Sicily and one twin's wife mistakes the other for her husband while her real husband is getting back at her by giving away some of her belongings to a prostitute. It is a play whose intention is to evoke laughter and gaiety through use of situational irony and circumstance. The "mistaken identity" theme is a widely recognized hallmark of humor and the play was later adapted by William Shakespeare in "A Comedy of Errors". This is only a single example and if it is insufficient to convince you then I can provide more. --[[User:NicholasT|NicholasT]] 12:20, 29 April 2009 (EDT)

:::: I'm not familiar with that work and welcome specific "humor" that you think is in it. I caution you, however, against automatically assuming that the play must have been intended to be "humor" as "Trading Places" is. Most ancient "comedies" were not really "humor" in the modern sense of the word, but were charming poetry. "To err is human; to forgive divine" could have been in a "comedy" in the ancient sense of the term, but it is not "humor".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:33, 29 April 2009 (EDT)

:::::As I said before, I am a student of Theatre. I am familiar with the varying definition of comedy, especially in regards to the history of the playwright. On the whole being designated a "comedy" as laid down in Aristotle's "Poetics" only meant that it was not a tragedy: meaning that the protagonist did not ultimately fall victim to his tragic flaw or hamartia as is necessary in a tragedy. Indeed, a comedy in the theatrical sense is not by necessarily "funny", however, a play intended to be funny would still fall under the category of comedy. What I provide is not only a comedy in the classical sense, but a comedy explicitly intended to be funny and, furthermore, primarily through the use of wit and situation rather than explicitly through vulgarity and slapstick. [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text.jsp?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0101%3Aact%3Dintro%3Ascene%3Dsubject here is a text, translated from it's original latin] that I managed to find. The first lines of act one, scene one have the character Peniculus explaining that his friends call him "The Sponge" because of his enormous apatite and ability to seemingly absorb food and clean a table. This becomes a bit of a running gag with lines such as between one of the characters and her servant when she sends the servant with some money to get food. She says basically "We need food for three people" to which the servant replies "Who's eating" when he learns that the list of three includes Peniculus he states "So I'll need enough money to get food for ten people then." This is just one example of a "gag" within the script. Much of the humor comes from the characters momentary on the action which is given directly to the audience, the relationship between Menaechmus and his wife, for instance is another source of humor reminiscent of "The Honeymooners". At one point Menaechmus tells his consort that he spent a fairly large amount of money on some clothes for his wife, prompting Peniculus to say sadly to the audience "And that's good money he'll never see again...". These are just some examples from the first act. The overall plot of the show, as I said before, involves what has become one of the most prevalent comedic devices of mistaken identity to drive the plot.

:::::The notes provided in the translation occasionally point out various terms that while not readily apparent "where meant to make the audience laugh". Plautus also helped to pioneer the various comedic stereotypes which would eventually become the basis for the Italian Comedia Del Arte and later would be exploited by Shakespeare and persist even today. These include: The crafty servant, The pompous, ego-inflated general, the buffoonish erudite, the elderly lech, the idiotic lover, and others. Most of these archetypes can be seen in "The Taming of the Shrew" as a matter of fact, relatively unchanged from the base of their inception. I could go further into a discussion regarding this play if you wish, though we are quickly approaching the level of research paper and most of the info can be found in the link I provided above. I believe it meets all of the criteria for being considered true humor. It is not based around physical slapstick or vulgarity, it's intention is to make the audience laugh, it utilizes an acknowledged comedic device as a plot driver, and it is verified as predating Christianity (Plautus is believed to have died around 184 B.C.). Again, if this one play is insufficient, then I could provide more evidence. I apologize for the length of this post, but I do love disusing Theatre and while brevity may be the soul of wit, I am not claiming to be witty...just that this play is witty :)--[[User:NicholasT|NicholasT]] 14:01, 29 April 2009 (EDT)

==Who was right - Catholics or Protestants?==

Can you explain what you mean by this question? It's a bit like asking - who is right, Christians of Buddhists? Do you mean, regarding Transubstantiation? Or do you mean celibacy? Or the infallibility of the Pope? Maybe you could phrase it a little more clearly? Finally, do you think it's helpful to the world to see the world like this? Doesn't every faith believe it's 'right'? [[User:TadghOB|TadghOB]] 17:10, 9 February 2009 (EST)

: Surely you don't think that just because different people hold different views that each think are right, truth therefore does not exist. If I told that some cultures believe that 2+2 equals infinity, and are convinced they are right, would that change your view that 2+2=4 and not infinity?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:50, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::Well, yes, I do? Despite my own faith, I cannot in all sincerity tell a Buddhist that their faith is nonsense - I simply don't believe that's a way to get along with the rest of the planet, the pursuit of which is, after all, is our bounden duty here on this Earth. My own faith (Catholicism) has experienced many controversies, and although I hold fast to my faith, I acknowledge that it is not without its flaws and appalling mistakes. Jesus taught us to "love thy neighbour", after all. But to return to the question at hand - "who is right, Catholics or Protestants?". As an Irish Catholic married to an Irish Protestant, I'm sure you'll understand there's a great deal of sensitivity over this issue on our Island. And I'm certainly not about to tell my partner that her beliefs are 'wrong'. But what 'right' are you referring to? [[User:TadghOB|TadghOB]] 19:06, 9 February 2009 (EST)

To keep this conversation from devolving into an ideological argument, I thought I might try to clarify the original question: I interpret it as referring to the issues at the heart of the Protestant Reformation, namely the allegations of abuses of power within the Catholic Church, the selling of indulgences, the lack of reliance on Scripture, etc. Some of these are purely theological points, but I think historical discussion can bring light to the issue of whether or not the Protestants were justified in some of their more pragmatic claims. --[[User:Economist|Economist]] 19:13, 9 February 2009 (EST)

: In reply to TadghOB, one thing about Jesus is indisputable: He did tell others they were wrong, and was very clear that He was divisive rather than uniting.

: In reply to Economist, there is the issue of how to deal with the problems, and what the subsequent centuries and today illustrate. I'm not yet taking a position on the question, but am pointing out how your list is incomplete.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:25, 9 February 2009 (EST)

== Why did Islam grow so rapidly? ==

Not sure there's a lot of mystery here. The rise of Islam is well documented in both Arab and Byzantine sources. The "mystery", if there is one, is how Mohammed managed to convert a sizeable number of followers in his lifetime and how they became organised into a small but effective military force. Thereafter, Islam spread for several reasons. Initially, it was confined to Arab soldiers and their families and was something of an elite religion. But the Arabs were generally welcomed by the common people in the Byzantine territories because they imposed lighter taxes, their military levies were less oppressive and they didn't cut people's heads off because they disagreed with the Emperor's theological opinions. The same factors are reflected in the decline of the Byzantine empire, to the benefit of the Arabs in West Asia and North Africa: excessive taxation, too many able-bodied men from wealthy families joining the priesthood to evade military service, and continuous demoralisation of the population through religious disputes. Added to that was the over-centralisation of power in the Byzantine Empire, with the result that when the Emperor was out of action, there were few men with both the authority and the competence to wield power effectively. Such was the situation at the decisive Battle of the Yarmouk, in what is now northern Jordan, when the Emperor Heraclius was ill and unable to take the field, resulting in a decisive victory for the Arabs.

Islam spread in the territories conquered by the Arabs for similar reasons to the spread of Christianity in Europe: local rulers ingratiating themselves with their overlord (the Arab Caliph in this case), the prestige of being part of the official religion, the apparent evidence that God must favour the Muslims because he enabled them to win battles, and lower taxation for Muslims.

It's much harder to understand why the Byzantine Empire lasted as long as it did. Also, why did the Arabs not conquer most of the West? The post-Roman kingdoms in the West seem to have been more organised and effective than historians gave them credit for until recently.

See e.g. John Julius Norwich's history of Byzantium (three volumes but extremely - even addictively - readable). Also 'The Formation of Christendom' by Judith Herrin, the standard modern work on the interplay of Church and State in the Byzantine Empire; she shows that the church wasn't always a negative influence, as Edward Gibbon supposed. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 20:06, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:In addition to Fred's information above, Islam burst out of Arabia at a time when both the Byzantines and the Persians were completely exhausted from fighting each other interminably. There is also talk of a plague epidemic that wasted the so-called civilised powers but had little effect in the sparcely populated Arabian desert. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 20:52, 9 February 2009 (EST)

== Romans ==

''Did the Romans recognize or understand the concept of "truth"?''

What reason do you have to think that they did not? We would surely disagree with any ancient people (not just the Romans) about whether certain ideas are true or false, but that would not mean that the people did not understand the ''concept'' of truth. What meaning do you think the word ''veritas'' had for the Romans?--[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 07:18, 20 February 2009 (EST)

== Literacy in Ancient Greece ==

I don't know what the literacy level is in the USA but let's guess at 98-99%. In ancient Greece, the people who were able to read were free, male city dwellers - and by no means all of them. Perhaps 1% of the population could read. Not sure why this one is on the list of mysteries, because it isn't one. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 19:11, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

== Decline and fall of the Roman Empire ==

This is at the other end of the spectrum - i.e. a truly unsolved problem which has been a rich subject for academic research and debate. Many books have been written about this subject so you need some kind of strategy to assemble a decent essay on the subject. I would say it's more accurate to write about the ''transformation'' of the Roman Empire, not its fall. The Eastern half of the Roman Empire as divided by Diocletian became the Eastern Roman Empire, governed from Constantinople. The Western half became a set of independent kingdoms ruled by Germanic tribes. The territory of both the Western and Eastern halves of the Empire on the southern shore of the Mediterranean, plus the Levant, became part of the Arab Caliphate. All these successor states relied heavily on Roman methods of administration and law. Arguably, the ''only'' part of the Empire that actually declined and fell, insofar as the lives of ordinary people were concerned, was England.

Some of the more important causes of the decline (transformation):
* Environmental degradation of farmland.
* The permanent state of civil war for over 50 years in the middle of the 3rd century.
* Over-centralisation of power in the hands of the emperors from the late 3rd century onwards, partly as a reaction to the instability of the 3rd century.
* Outsourcing - i.e. the replacement of Roman manpower in the army by German mercenaries.
* The sapping of the numbers of young men who could serve in the army, especially as officers, because ordination as a priest or even a deacon precluded military service.
* The decline in the tax base, because priests and monks didn't have to pay taxes.
* Population pressure as tribes (e.g. the Huns) were forced westward by the failure of farming in central Asia.
* The Great Plague of c.535, which may have been even more destructive than the Black Death.
* Interminable religious disputes diverted much of the empire's intellectual effort.
* As ever in history, chance. The Emperor Heraclius, possibly the greatest general of all Roman emperors, fell ill at a critical moment. The Arabs, on the other hand, were commanded by their greatest general, Khalid ibn al-Walid, and, against all expectations, won what is now called the Battle of the Yarmouk in 636.
[[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 19:40, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

== Did the Hebrews build the pyramids? ==

Almost certainly not. If you mean the Pyramids of Giza, including the Great Pyramid of Khufu, they were built in the 4th Dynasty (c.2500BC), about a millennium before Joseph. I don't know where the Hebrews were at that time, but it wasn't Egypt. The last of the significant pyramids in Egypt was built in the 12th Dynasty, c.1860BC, a good 200 years before Joseph.

According to the Bible, which should be considered semi-historical evidence, Joseph used a chariot but chariots didn't appear in Egypt till c.1650BC.

So: no, and not a mystery. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 19:52, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

== How were the pyramids built? ==

This isn't known for sure but calling it a mystery rather demeans the excellent archaeological research on the subject. [http://www.archaeology.org/0705/etc/pyramid.html Here's a good, accessible article.] [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 20:00, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

== Origin of the name Jesus ==

Jesus, pronounced ''Dzheezus'' in English, is the Latin version of his name (pronounced ''Yaysoos''). In turn, that's the Latin spelling of the Greek version of his name (same pronounciation as in Latin). And that's the Hellenised version of the Hebrew name Yehoshua. Which, as it happens, has come into English by a more direct route as Joshua.

The only thing that might seem slightly curious here is the sound shift from ''Y'' to ''J'' at the beginning of the word. This came about because the letters ''I'' and ''J'' were used indiscriminantly by English printers in the late middle ages. By the time the letter J finally entered the English alphabet (early 17th century, I think), Latin words which the Romans spelt with a initial ''I'' (e.g. Iulius Caesar) had come to be spelt with an initial ''J'' in English (hence Julius Caesar). So then they acquired the pronounciation ''J'', as in the very common names James and John.

Again, I don't know why you call this a mystery. This is pretty well known and very easy to look up if you don't know it. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 20:11, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

== Reply to the Above ==

Fred, thanks for your attempt to solve the mystery, but I've got news for you: your spelling is atrocious and you're absurdly wrong in claiming that literacy in the U.S. is 98% or 99%. It's nowhere near that high.

The liberals who are running [[public schools]], and whom you likely support, are producing millions of illiterates each year. And it's getting worse thanks to how you likely vote. I know, you don't think it's your fault, but someone is electing these people who are perpetrating illiteracy. Fortunately, some parents are waking up to the problem, even if voters aren't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:44, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

* Spelling: I wrote ''we'' instead of ''were'' at one point in the 'Decline and Fall' section but apart from that, you'll have to tell me what my spelling mistakes are because I don't see them.
* Why does anything I've written make you assume I'm a liberal?
* Your criticism of public schools is a 'straw man' argument. Scotland (where I live) has almost entirely public education and a very high literacy rate. Likewise the Scandinavian countries, Holland, etc. Maybe there's something wrong with public education in the USA but it's too simplistic just to blame any problems on the fact that schools are public ''per se''.
* So you'll have gathered I haven't voted for anyone who's perpetuated illiteracy in the USA.
* Even so, I don't believe literacy in the USA is as low as 1-2%, which is what it was in Ancient Greece.
* Finally, are you always so rude to contributors? I hope you don't behave like that to the schoolkids you tutor. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 07:33, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

:: [https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2103.html The CIA World Factbook concurs] with Mister Ferguson -- 99% literacy (defined as "age 15 and over can read and write"), both male and female, in the United States. [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 08:35, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

::: Don't believe everything the government says, obviously. Illiteracy is rampant in many public schools, and among millions of adults in the U.S.

::::Care to cite a source (like I did)? You merely say "millions of adults" -- well, there's 220 million adults in the United States. If 1% of them cannot read, that's 2.2 million -- in other words, "millions". I'll grant, 99% literacy seems high, especially if you're looking at functional literacy (that is, able to read and write well enough to function in society) versus ability to read and write at all (my five year old niece can read and write a smidge, but certainly not well enough to hold a job!), but you act as if half the population couldn't read anything more than the cutesy graphics on the front page of USA Today. [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 10:28, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

::: Fred, I'm surprised you think my reply was "rude", yet seem to have no problem with your own postings. As to spellings, "indiscriminantly"? "Pronounciation"? Please. Also, don't try to fool anyone into thinking you're not a liberal. We are a truthful resource here and we disclose our point of view up-front. Do likewise or find another site to rant on. Wikipedia likes people who hide their point of view. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:50, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

:::: * Whoops! Tripped up on two of the trickier words in the English language. Maybe you'd better take a blue pencil to your own contributions - they're not exactly flawless either.
:::: * "Liberal" - please answer my question. What, exactly, is liberal about what I've written above?
:::: * You're very fond of accusing people of ranting, aren't you? I've seen you say that to other people. But stating the facts and arguing logically isn't ranting. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 10:07, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

Can we focus on the facts, please? [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] has brought up some interesting points - let's discuss those, rather than who is the better speller. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:12, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::This is the Fred Ferguson who claimed his spelling was immaculate, and when his errors were pointed out responded with a blase, "Oh, those are the two most difficult words in the English Language, so it doesn't really count", is it? the Fred Ferguson who thinks that ad homs are an adequate replacement for logical debate? I'm sure his points are very valid indeed! [[User:RaviS|RaviS]] 11:07, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::: And your point is...? I don't see the relevance of this to the facts of the discussion. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 11:12, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::::I dare say you don't. However, I have grave doubts about whether your 'fact'-mongering is carried out with the intention of helping to build up Conservapedia. Given the nature of these 'facts', and of your attitude, I suspect quite the opposite. [[User:RaviS|RaviS]] 12:53, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
: LITERACY: I crunched some numbers. According to the CIA World Fact Book, the population of the US is 303,824,640. 20.1% of that is children 0-14 years,w ho are presumably still working on literacy. Leave them out and that gives 303,824,640*0.799 = 242,755,887 adults. Now if 99% of those are literate, how many are not? 242,755,887*0.01 = 2,427,559. Thus even if 99% of Americans are literate, there are still two and a half million American adults who are illiterate. So we can have BOTH millions of illiterate Americans AND 99% literacy. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:19, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

::I found some interesting reading on literacy in the US in [http://nces.ed.gov/pubs93/93275.pdf this report]. I have not read it all (I have to get back to teaching and laundry and bread baking), but I think it will prove worthwhile for those interested in seriously discussing this topic. Note that it provides a more complex picture of literacy than just "literate" vs. "illiterate". I would be interested also in reading something about literacy in Ancient Greece. My layman's impression is that women and slaves were generally not taught to read, which, if accurate, would imply that there was significantly less literacy in Ancient Greece than in modern America, even if Mr Schlafly's perspective on US public schools & literacy is accurate. Has anyone found any information to the contrary? --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:34, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

::: Info on literacy in ancient Greece:
::: [http://www.historyliteracy.org/scripts/search_display.php?Article_ID=69 Book review of ''Literacy and Orality in Ancient Greece'' (suggests literacy as we understand it was confined to "a very small elite")]
::: [http://people.uncw.edu/deagona/ancientnovel/leslie.htm An article on ''Literacy and the Ancient Novel'' (suggests "advanced literacy" of 5%)]
::: Doesn't sound comparable to the modern USA! [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 10:54, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

:::: FredFerguson, have you ever considered that some sources aren't trustworth and that some things (like literacy in Ancient Greece) can't be measured? It's all very well citing a book or article, but then you have to consider where the book writer or article writer got the information from - and in an unfortunately large number of cases it comes from the top of his head. How do they know what literacy levels were in Ancient Greece? As a Greek lay dying, did he say to his son "Now if you remember one thing, remember this, and pass it on to your children....the current literacy rate is 5%. Pass it on to antiquity!"? I doubt it. It is quite likely that the figures quoted in those articles are just plain lies, or taken from other sources which have lied. Just because you read it somewhere doesn't mean it's true. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 12:50, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::::I don't think that truth is one of his priorities. [[User:RaviS|RaviS]] 12:54, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::::::Maybe, but it's undeniable that nowadays 'Professor' has become a deceptive title; people are too inclined to trust them and what they say based purely on their title, when in fact they should be subject to greater scrutiny. Too many people see a book or article by a 'Professor' and immediately believe it must be completely true. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 12:59, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::::::::::::Well, RaviS, who's being ''ad hominem'' now?! And ETrundel, simply because something can't be measured directly doesn't mean it can't be estimated. And the fact that one estimate has been made doesn't mean that that estimate can't be improved. But in general, people who've studied a subject seriously generally have a better idea of the actual facts than people who just dismiss out of hand any factual information they find uncomfortable.
::::::Can we move this discussion forward? Does anyone else have some '''information''' to contribute about any of the topics I've raised on this page? [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 13:10, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
Is it even sensible to talk about the literacy rate in Ancient Greece as a whole? I believe that (for example) Athens and Sparta had very different societies, so could be expected to have different levels of literacy.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 13:13, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:CPalmer makes a very good point. And to FredFerguson, people are trying to contribute, but you keep arguing and trying to stop them. Also, do you really believe that so-called "Professors" are totally and utterly unfallible? Have you really been brainwashed into thinking that they are totally devoted to the truth and don't have their own agendas to push? Because believe me, many of them do. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 13:17, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::So books written by academics who are experts in the field don't count as trustworthy anymore? Compilations of population statistics written by a branch of the government aren't somewhat reliable either? Then what sources should we use? WND? Whatever we decide is the truth? And don't give me any of that "open your mind" rubbish - we need adequate sources or we're just making it up.
So can we accept that millions of Americans are illiterate, the literacy rate is 99%, and the literacy rate in Athens was high within a small elite, very low elsewhere? These seem to have been established in the discussion and I don't understand why there's dissent (certainly no contradictory sources have been provided.)[[User:JHanson|JHanson]] 13:18, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::Mr Ferguson's claim above that only men could read may be a good starting point. If we can find a reliable source to verify this, then we can say confidently that the literacy rate couldn't have been more than 50%.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 13:19, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::::Given that one of the most famous ancient poets, Sappho, was a woman, Mr F may need to think again! [[User:RaviS|RaviS]] 13:23, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::::Excellent point! Now we seem to be getting somewhere.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 13:25, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::::On the other hand, reliable historical records place the number of Ancient Greek female poets as being minute, one of the reasons Sappho is famous is because she was a female poet at a time when poets were almost exclusively male. An example can be drawn with medieval Europe where, outside of the nobility, literacy was confined almost exclusively to men such as priests and the wealther merchants, but on rare occasion some women were taught literacy skills.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 13:33, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::::::The reliable source you want is ''Literacy and Orality in Ancient Greece'', cited above. Note that most poetry in the ancient world was oral, e.g. the epic poems ascribed to Homer may have been recited by bards for 500 years before they were eventually written down c.700BC. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 13:37, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::::::I'm not going to respond to the renewed jibes from RaviS and ETrundel. Let's talk about the facts. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 13:37, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::::::...he said, masterfully sidestepping their legitimate objections. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 13:46, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::::::::Mr. Ferguson has actually provided citations for his arguments. It is reasonable to dispute the accuracy of his citations, but it needs to be something more than "oh, a professor wrote those; people put far too much faith in that title." In other words, provide citations of your own, not hand-waving dismissal. [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 14:05, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

It appears to me that there really isn't a consistent answer to the question of the ancient Greeks. Spartan boys were taught to read and write, but they didn't really care for the skills so functionally they may have been illiterate still. The Athenians could definitely read - provided you happened to be male and somewhat well off. Literacy in the US is well higher because reading is a necessary function of socialization within our time. The ancient Greeks loved the arts, but they were more loved for their aesthetics than their functional qualities.

What is contestable about our high literacy rate? Millions still can't read, but that's because our population happens to be rather large. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 14:16, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:True enough. Instead of comparing actual literacy rates it might be more appropriate to compare how much access/opportunity people have or have had to learning literacy skills.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 14:52, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

TO SUM UP THUS FAR: So, the original mystery was ''How did the level of literacy in Ancient Greece compare with the United States now? '' So far, considering all the evidence offered above, the answer would be something like "While not all American adults are functionally literate, literacy in the US is much more widespread than that of Ancient Greece, and includes a broader range of the population. More people in the US have access to education than did in Ancient Greece; this is particularly true of women and the lower classes." References: [https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2103.html The CIA World Factbook], [http://nces.ed.gov/pubs93/93275.pdf this report on literacy in the US], [http://www.historyliteracy.org/scripts/search_display.php?Article_ID=69 Book review of ''Literacy and Orality in Ancient Greece''], [http://people.uncw.edu/deagona/ancientnovel/leslie.htm An article on ''Literacy and the Ancient Novel'']. Does anyone have any other sources that might be significant? Is there an appropriate way to include this in the article? I'm not sure what the etiquette is about editing "mystery" pages. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 15:08, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

[http://www.detlitcoal.org/faq.htm 47% of people in metro Detroit are functionally illiterate]. I doubt the rate of illiteracy was much higher in Athens in ancient Greece.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:11, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
: It sounds as though the rate of functional literacy in ancient Greece was a very low percentage, 5% at most. The rate of literacy in Detroit doesn't sound great but (1) it's still a lot higher than ancient Greece, which was the original - if rather arcane - question and (2) how representative is Detroit of the USA as a whole? [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 15:16, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

:: Your 5% figure is not credible. Socrates had a big following, and all of them could read and write. As someone pointed out, Spartans (not known to be as educated and Athenians) were taught to read and write. Moreover, democracy of Athens would not have originated without widespread literacy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:21, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::So how did American democracy originate if the US was (and is) plagued by illiteracy? Also, Socrates had a following amongst the other elites. As was said, literacy was high amongst the elites, low everywhere else.[[User:JHanson|JHanson]] 15:30, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::I suggest you take up the argument about the 5% figure with the authors of the books I've cited. They're the experts on the subject, not me.
:::Athenian voting: only adult men who'd completed military training were eligible to vote - no women, slaves or people of foreign origin. In any case, Athenians gathered to hear arguments orally, not to read newspapers. The same applied in the early democracies in the Viking domains, e.g. Iceland and the Isle of Man; there's no evidence there that any but a tiny proportion of the people there (mainly priests) could read.
:::I agree with JHanson's point about Socrates; yes, he had a following, but it was made up of aristocratic men who had women, slaves and foreigners to do their work for them. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 15:38, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

: <edit conflict> Looking at the Detroit data: Remember that when they refer to "functioning at the lowest literacy level", they do not necessarily mean completely unable to read. The NALS report explains the definitions of literacy level they used in their survey. They group people into four different levels. Those in the lowest level include people who can do basic tasks like identifying a specific piece of information in a news article; those people have basic reading skills. 66% to 75% of the people in this lowest level described themselves as being able to read or write English "well" or "very well". It's important also to look at who is in this lowest group. It includes immigrants, for whom English may not be their native language (25%), people with physical, mental, or health conditions that affect literacy (26%), people age 65 and older who may not have had the educational opportunities offered to today's students (one-third), and those with visual difficulties that affect their ability to read print (19%). So the whole question of literacy is much more complex than simply "can this person read or not", and the 99% number cited in some sources is measuring something quite different than the "functional literacy" rate referred to by the Detroit Literacy Coalition. (Note also that the NALS survey included some mathematics in their definition of literacy.) I am not surprised that a depressed inner city like Detroit includes a large number of people who struggle with literacy. However, we obviously cannot conclude that the Detroit rate is in any way similar to an overall US rate. As an example, the Detroit Literacy Coalition puts the functional illiteracy rate in Michigan at only 18%. This of course implies that there are areas of Michigan where the rate of illiteracy is significantly lower than 18% - perhaps wealthier, suburban areas. 
:As to Ancient Greece - while Socrates may have had a big following, they would have been men who were wealthy enough to have time for philosophy. Women, slaves, and the lower classes would not have been part of his followers. Remember also that in the democracy of Athens, only men who owned land were eligible to vote - again, women, slaves, and the lower classes were not included. I do not know anything about the number of people in each of these groups, except that it is reasonable to assume that women were around 50% of the population. Even if we assume the US's rate of functional literacy is 72% (based on Michigan's), it seems unlikely that Ancient Greece would come anywhere near this, given that most women, slaves, and the lower classes do not seem to have been, generally speaking, functionally literate. Leaving out the women alone gives a literacy rate of 50% - removing the slaves and the lower classes would bring it even lower. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 16:00, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::Good points there. The book review of ''Literacy and Orality'' makes it clear that most of those in ancient Greece who could read or write at all did so rarely and at a rudimentary level. I just don't see that the modern USA is comparable in any way. The much more important questions are, is literacy in the USA now as high as it should be (probably not) and how can it be raised?
::But on the specific subject of Athenian democracy, (1) I don't think men had to be land-owners in order to vote, e.g. merchants, craftsmen, etc, were eligible and (2) it's been estimated that as few as 1% of the residents of Athens had voting rights (if I can find a reference, I'll add it). [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 16:20, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::''I don't think men had to be land-owners in order to vote...'' It's quite possible that I'm wrong on that one. My kids and I have been reading a bit about Ancient Greece for our history studies, but we've been looking mostly at non-fiction books for kids, and I'm guessing some are more accurate than others. I'm far from an expert on history.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 16:32, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::::Hsmom, the WP page on Athenian democracy seems informative. Solon originally set a property qualification for voting but by the time of the "Golden Age" (Pericles to Aristotle, roughly), that had fallen into disuse. In peace-time, as much as 10% of the population may have been adult male Athenians who had completed military service, but that fell dramatically when Athens was at war, as it so often was (I think the 1% figure that I recalled had something to do with the time of the Peloponnesian[*] War). [* I bet I haven't spelt that right!] [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 16:39, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::::::What does "widespread mean" in this context? I seem to remember that Athens some time during he 5th century had a population of about quarter of a million. Only about a sixth of that were fully paid up citizens. (BTW, citizenship was a bit more complicated than owning land - in act it was somewhat the other way around - only citizens were allowed to own land.) The rest were children, women, slaves, helots, criminals, etc. So, if ''every citizen could read and write'' there would be a literacy figure of less than 20%. (I would imagine some literacy amongst the helots.) But let's get down to the nitty-gritty:
*Schools appeared in Athens during the 6th century.
*They taught the "Three Rs" plus Music and Physical Education from age 7.
*Teachers were generally low-paid, not particularly highly thought of members of society. They were paid by the parents.
*It was generally accepted that the average '''male''' citizen could read and write.
*Athens - at least into the 5th century - was still a generally "bookless" society - kids were taught their Homer to recite, not to write.
*There were no "institutions of higher learning" until the 4th century. For specialist learning (say medicine) an "expert" was engaged. (There were ''sophists'', itinerant teachers who went from city to city teaching certain specialist subjects and cost an arm and a leg.) A formal system of secondary education didn't appear until Hellenist times.
[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 16:49, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
==Update==
I updated the list to contain more mysteries and to reflect the sources and arguments here. Mysteries that were not really mysteries (such as whether the Hebrews were Egyptian slaves) have been removed, and the rise of Islam mystery has been changed to "Why did Islam fail to conquer the West" in response to Fred's answer and question. I am posting this comment under a new heading because it is far too much trouble to make little comments under each relevant section on this page. [[User:JWeatherman|JWeatherman]]

: Your additions are fine, but censorship is not. So I will look at what you removed and may restore them. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:05, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

== The Gunpowder Plot ==

I have just noticed the addition of the apparent mystery 'Was there really a genuine "Gunpowder Plot"?' The Gunpowder Plot of 1605 was very much real and there are huge amounts of evidence for it. Personally, I would add that before today I have never even heard of anyone who would claim that it didn't happen. The only major debates on the issue are not over whether it was real, but over certain details, such as suspected conspirators and what the outcome would have been had the plot not been foiled. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 22:15, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

: If this is the first you're hearing of the dispute, then I guess you don't read the Oxford Dictionary of World History! As explained in [[World History Lecture Nine]], that authority recognizes the dispute about the genuineness of the "plot".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:39, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

::I think this is due to a misinterpretation of the dictionary's entry on the matter. The most recent version states:

::"It has been suggested that Robert Cecil manufactured the plot, in order to discredit the Catholic cause"

::This is the only part of the entry that in anyway alludes to what you suggest, but when read in the context of the rest of the entry, and with a better understanding of Cecil himself, this is cleared up. The rest of the entry clearly outlines the plot itself and what did actually happen. The statement regarding Cecil is not saying he manufactured the plot as in 'he made it up', but is stating that some suspect him of organising the plot itself (although this is disputed by many). Even if Cecil did devise the plot to serve his own aims, and it wasn't simply a case of a 'Catholic conspiracy' then it does not change the fact that the plot was real, only that it's exact origins are unclear. There is little doubt that those directly involved in carrying out the plot were doing it for the generally accepted reasons of simply destroying Parliament and the king, in which case if Cecil was involved he was using them. The plot was very much genuine, and those who planted the powder had every intention of carrying it out. Whether or not the plot was instigated for the reasons stated by these men does not change this fact. The mystery is over the overall aims of the plot, in terms of who was the person who was really behind it. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 23:42, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

::: You attempt to draw a distinction without a difference. If Cecil manufactured the plot, a possibility acknowledged by the Oxford source, then there was never any chance of the plot being carried out. Even under your view, the participants would then have been manipulated and guided toward committing a crime. At a minimum, they would be entitled to a new trial to determine their actual guilt, and they would likely raise the recognized defense of entrapment.

::: Note that you don't acknowledge how the Oxford source has proven your first comments to be incorrect. Significant doubts have been raised and published about the truth of the story as it is recounted and celebrated.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:10, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

::::Actually, the same people who suggest that Cecil manufactured the plot, and this is the minority opinion, suggest that whether the plot succeeded or failed then his aims would have been met. The very discovery of a plot, either failed or successful would have given rise to greater suppression of Catholics in the country as was his suspected aim. There is also a suggestion that Cecil wanted James' heir, who before his death in 1612, was Prince Henry, to be crowned, as this would also have helped his suspected aims. The implication is that even if Cecil was responsible then he may well have let the plot succeed or fail, and even then as the Oxford Dictionary implies, Cecil's direct involvement is not accepted by most historians in such a manner.

::::Besides, even if the plot was doomed to fail it does not change the existence of the plot itself. The PLOT existed, whether it was likely to be successful is a different matter. The motives and potential of the plot do not alter the fact that it did exist as a historical fact, and so I think the mystery is badly worded to suggest that this is not the case. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 11:45, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

::::: Robert, you learn about the defense of entrapment, as used successfully in the criminal defense of John DeLorean a few decades ago. "Manufactured" plots are not the same as real ones. Cecil may have misled and exploited some useful idiots who never would have done something like that on their own.

::::: Maybe you think John DeLorean should have been found guilty in his trial, but the jurors felt otherwise. He was entrapped to fabricate a crime that never would have happened otherwise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:48, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

Batman

2009-04-29T16:23:45Z

NicholasT:

[[Image:ARoss Batman.png|right|300px|thumb|''Batman'', by Alex Ross]]
'''Batman''' is a fictional [[superhero]] first appearing in ''Detective Comics'' in May, 1939. The creation of artist Bob Kane and writer Bill Finger, Batman remains one of the most famous and recognizable of the superhero genre, resulting in the creation of several television series, motion pictures, and graphic novels. The original comics are highly-prized by collectors and routinely fetch hundreds of thousands of dollars on the auction block.

==Comics lore==
The man who was to become Batman is Bruce Wayne, a Gotham City billionaire who inherited his wealth from his father, a prominent doctor and philanthropist named Thomas Wayne. A trip to the movies with the family ended in tragedy: Thomas and his wife Martha are murdered by a common thug in front of Bruce, whose childhood effectively ends at the age of eight. Growing up in the care of his father's butler, Alfred Pennyworth, he inherits a vast fortune, his father's business and philanthropic empire. Wayne's anger at his parent's murder causes him to vow revenge against the criminal element in all of it's forms. Wayne uses his wealth to travel the world during his teenage years, seeking out instruction from experts in various fields including martial arts, chemistry, psychology, forensics, meditation and engineering among other things. He returns to his home of Gotham city and is nearly killed as he attempts to stop a robbery.

While recovering in his study at Wayne Manor, Bruce Wayne's brooding is disturbed by a bat as it crashes through the window of his room. The bat inspires Wayne to create an alter ego for himself, one that will create fear and panic in those he targets, he decides to become the Batman. Wayne fashions himself a costume and arms himself with a small arsenal of bat related weapons and gear, specifically shunning guns. The refusal of Wayne to use guns stems not only from his professed belief that they are tools of the weak and cowardly, but also from a psychological block against them due to the one used in his parents murder. In the last issue of the DC series Final Crises, Batman overcomes his disdain of guns and uses a special bullet to mortally wound the villain Darkseid. Batman is seemingly killed by Darkseid in the process and as of yet his fate is unknown.

Batman is unusual for superheroes in that he has no superhuman powers, though he is certainly an unusually gifted human being: an athlete who would "win or place" in any Olympic event, master of a dizzying array of martial arts forms, genius detective and capable scientist, and a billionaire to top it off. Despite this, he uses his brains, training, and resources to not only keep up but excel in comparison with many heroes with great superpowers, a testament to man's will in the face of adversity.

==Film and television==
The first dramatic appearance of Batman appeared as a reoccurring guest star on the "Superman" radio series. Interestingly, during the initial story line, Batman and Robin didn't interact Superman, but Clark Kent. Batman's young side-kick, "Robin", was created specifically as an exposition device, desperately needed in radio. Although a pilot episode was recorded, Batman never received his own radio series.

The first film dealing with the Caped Crusader was a 1943 12-chapter serial from Columbia Pictures starring Lewis Wilson and Douglas Croft as Batman and Robin. The plot of the film centered on a nefarious, stereotypical Asian scientist, Dr. Daka (J. Carrol Naish), who has a plan to steal valuable resources from the United States in order to support the Axis during the World War II. Although low-budget, ''Batman'' introduced the concept of the Batcave (called the "Bat's Cave" in the film) and the hidden entry to it, as well as altering the appearance of Alfred from a portly servant to a leaner, robust individual. ''Batman and Robin'' would follow it in 1949, also as a serial, starring Robert Lowery and Johnny Duncan (Muir, 9; 72)

In January 1966, ABC released a "Batman" television series starring Adam West. During the series pre-production, there was a heated debate over which direction the Caped Crusader should be taken. Eventually, Producer William Dozier's vision won out - "Batman" would be a high budgeted, camp series which ridiculed the character. This portrayal of the character, while it was in line with the comics of the time, came in later years to be reviled by fans, particularly during the '80s and '90s. During the summer of 1966, Dozier unleased a "Batman" feature film, also starring Adam West.

Although the series caught on quickly, it fell just as suddenly. During the series' third season, Yvonne Craig was hired to protray "Batgirl" - a young woman who wore a tight purple leather outfit. This did nothing to slow the ratings plunge. The last few episode of "Batman" were literally among the lowest rated television series of the 60s.

For decades after, the "Batman" television series defined the filmed comic book template, which can be seen feature films such as "Doc Savage" and the television productions of "The Justice League" and "The Spirit". The template was broken in 1978 with the success of 1978's "The Incredible Hulk" starring Bill Bixby. Later comic based characters would take on a more serious role, including Batman himself.

''Batman'' film took a darker turn in 1989, when the Tim Burton-directed film, starring Michael Keaton, portrayed Bruce Wayne as a reclusive, quirky billionaire who probably was not entirely sane. While at first wary of an actor known primarily for comedies playing Batman, some fans ended up going to other movies before its release just to see the trailer for the Batman film, and then walked out, not even watching the movie they paid for. The film was a success, and was widely-lauded for Jack Nicholson's portrayal of Batman's nemesis, the Joker. It was followed up with 1992's ''Batman Returns'', which, while not as well-reviewed or successful, was still accepted by the fans, and brought the iconic figures of Catwoman and the Penguin into the movie universe.

The tone of the new movies influenced the critically-acclaimed ''Batman: The Animated Series'', a cartoon shown at first in prime time. Some of its takes on certain villains, such as Mr. Freeze, became iconic, and it introduced several characters that eventually "immigrated" to the comics, such as Detective Renee Montoya, and the Joker's hench-girlfriend, Harley Quinn.

Tim Burton was replaced with Joel Schumacher for the third Batman movie in the new movie canon, ''Batman Forever'' (1995), which introduced Robin (Batman's iconic sidekick), and the villians the Riddler and Two-Face. Whereas Burton had tried for a more dark and Gothic look, Schumacher went with bright neon colors and brought back some of the camp of the '60s TV series. The movie did well at the box office, but received mixed reviews. The fourth and final film of this "universe" was ''Batman and Robin'', released in 1997. Widely regarded as the worst of the series by fan and critic alike, ''Batman and Robin'' returned fully to the campy tone of the TV series, featuring "candy-coated" sets, poor special effects, weirder science than normal from Bat-Media, character derailment, and Arnold Schwarzennegger, as the lead villain Mr. Freeze, with barely 100 lines of dialogue, over half of which centered around cold-themed puns. This film was reviled for years as having "killed" the franchise, and performed relatively poorly in ticket sales.

The film series was rebooted again in 2005, with ''Batman Begins'', a grittier, more "realistic" take on Batman. In this film, director Christopher Nolan took Bruce Wayne, played by Christian Bale, halfway around the world in search of the answer to the riddle of criminality. He learns to fight multiple opponents, conceal himself, and gains the will to act in defense of others. Returning to Gotham after being declared legally dead, he deftly maneuvers himself back into the control of his murdered father's company and resolves to terrify the criminal element by making himself seem inhuman...and chooses the mantle of a bat, because bats scare ''him''.

The most recent entry in the series, ''The Dark Knight'', has thus far exceeded all expectations. Almost universally lauded by critics and shattering numerous box-office records, the film featured the final performance of [[Heath Ledger]], who died from a drug overdose after filming, as a monstrous version of the Joker, a psychotic who thinks the only sane way to live is without rules and wants to prove it to the world. Though the tone at the start of the film is hopeful--Batman has inspired citizens to stand up for themselves again and has organized crime in the city reeling--it quickly spirals downward, embodying the theme that Nolan chose for the movie: things have to get worse before they get better.

==References==
*Kane, Bob (with Tom Andrae). ''Batman & Me'', Eclipse Books, Forestville, California (1989).
*Goulart, Ron. ''Comic Book Encyclopedia'', Harper Entertainment, New York (2004).
*Muir, John Kenneth. ''The Encyclopedia of Superheroes on Film and Television'', McFarland & Company, Jefferson, North Carolina (2004)

[[Category:Entertainment]]
[[Category:Superheroes]]
[[Category:Comic Characters]]

Talk:Essay:Greatest Mysteries of World History

2009-04-29T16:20:44Z

NicholasT: /* Humor */

==Dark Ages==

I have to ask: does this really qualify as a "mystery?" Most people who have actually taken the time to study European history, I would suggest, would say that there's a clear and simple answer: "No, the so-called "Dark Ages" weren't really so backwards." Significant advances were made during the period generally termed the "Dark Ages" in many fields: music, agriculture, metallurgy, and philosophy spring to mind immediately. Historians today generally avoid using the term "Dark Ages" for precisely that reason.

Should it really be termed a "mystery" just because some people continue to hold misconceptions about it? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:11, 28 December 2008 (EST)
: Yes, it's not a mystery at all. Renaissance humanists hated the "dark ages" with a passion. Now we know just how much science and culture were developed during those centuries. Not so much a mystery as a myth, really (liberals love to claim early Christian Europe was fruitless) [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 14:14, 28 December 2008 (EST)

::Perhaps a better question would be "Why are the advances of the early Middle Ages frequently overlooked or dismissed?" --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:19, 28 December 2008 (EST)

:::My question is: ''What specific non-warfare scientific/technological advances were made in Christian Western Europe between the fall of Rome and AD1000?'' [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 15:36, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::There were some important scholars, notably Isidore of Seville (6th century Spain), Bede (7th century England) and Alcuin of York (8th century England). But, with these possible exceptions, European scholarship is overshadowed by India, China and the Muslim Caliphate in this period. The first European renaissance started when Christian scholars visited Spain and Sicily to benefit from Arab learning.

::::However, the so-called Dark Ages weren't nearly as obscure are the name suggests. There was significant trade with Byzantium and the Caliphate and the most important monasteries had access to classical Latin texts. There were major building projects, especially of monasteries, particularly from the late 8th century onwards. The standard of craftsmanship was exceptional - you couldn't say it declined at all during the "Dark Ages". Witness the jewelry at Sutton Hoo or the illustrated manuscripts produced by Anglo-Saxon scriptoria. The Anglo-Saxon kings, notably Alfred, Athelstan and Edgar, laid the basis of English government which was formalised by the coronation oath of Henry I.

::::Bear in mind that the setback to civilisation was only in Western Europe. Culture flourished in the Eastern Empire, also in the Arab Caliphate, while the Tang and Song Dynasties represent in many ways the peak of Chinese culture. Also, much of the foundations of mathematics were discovered in India in this period. Universities were first founded in Arab lands (Fez was the first, I think) in the 10th century, before spreading to Spain and thence to Christian Europe. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 20:23, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:::::The operative words in my question above were ''scientific/technological''. I know of Bede and Alcuin and have had occasion to look into Isadore in the last few months. Yes they were scholars, and they shine like beacons. I am also aware of the "Benedictine reformation" and the wonders done by St. Dunstan. But these are beacons in the gloom. Was it Dunstan who had the Benedictine rules translated into "English" because Latin had been largely forgotten? And I love the jewellery of that age. I have had occasion to read much of the [[Anglo-Saxon Chronicle]] a number of times last year...and it really was a dark and dangerous age. Only Christianity kept western society together (and I know of no historian that denies the good the Church did in those times) but as for science and technological advances, really there was very little, if any at all.
In another context the age is also called ''the great interruption''. Cheers [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:19, 9 February 2009 (EST)
::::::Science and technology: almost nothing, I think. The great advances in science during the so-called Dark Ages were in India and the Muslim countries. The West only started to turn the corner in terms of scientific learning when Gerbert (Pope Sylvester II) visited the Muslim universities in Spain, c.1000 (see R.W. Southern, ''The Making of the Middle Ages''). [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 17:59, 10 February 2009 (EST)
:Yes! Now all we have to do is get people to agree to it on [[Essay:Liberal Denials about History]] item (10) under "Specific truths that history books deny".[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 18:57, 10 February 2009 (EST)

==Humor==
Perhaps this entry could be clarified: is there a particular form of humor that the author had in mind? There are examples of jokes, riddles, puns, comic figurines/images, anthropoligical notes of humorous conversations, etc. from both pre-Christian times and from post-Christian 'first contacts' with cultures that had had no previous exposure to Christianity.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 09:37, 8 February 2009 (EST)

:Brossa: Can you provide some? --[[User:AbnerY|AbnerY]] 21:51, 8 February 2009 (EST)

:I'd like to see Brossa's alleged examples also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:49, 8 February 2009 (EST)

::How about Greek and Roman comedy? that way predated Christianity. Andy, what kind of claim are you making here? on what basis would you allege that humor does not predate Christianity? it seems pretty far-fetched. I'd like to see some evidence. --[[User:DaveClark|DaveClark]]

::: You misunderstand what a Greek "comedy" was. It was not a humorous performance as meant by the term today (after the onset of Christianity).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:32, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::: Yes. It was. The intention was to make people laugh. Otherwise, what on earth do you mean by "humor"? Also.. news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7536918.stm [[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 09:02, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::: Aschlafly is right in saying that the term "comedy" did not mean exactly what it does today, but KimSell is right that the works of playwrights such as Aristophanes certainly included humorous elements such as wordplay, farce and grotesque exaggeration (often surprisingly coarse by our standards). I'd also cite the episode where the children mocked Elisha in 2 Kings 2:23-24 as an example, albeit fairly base, of pre-Christian humor.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:10, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::: As a side-note, in the past there have been bitter disputes where people have taken the polar opposite position to Mr Schlafly, ie that all humor is un-Christian. This is touched on in Umberto Eco's ''The Name of the Rose'', which I recommend.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:21, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::::: The pre-Christian examples don't withstand scrutiny. Mockery or crude comments are not quality humor, and may not be humor at all.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:23, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:::::::Sorry Mr. Schlafly. While you may not consider crude comments humorous, it is still defined as humor. you are yet to back up the claim you're making with any specific evidense. even if greek comedy didn't qualify as humor (and it does) there would still be no evidence that the advent of christianity brought the advent of humor.

::::This will be easier if you define precisely what ''you'' mean by 'humor' or 'comedy' so that we can determine if in fact it did or did not exist before Christianity. As the essay stands now, it implies that there was no ''humor'' before Christianity, not that, say, stand-up comedy as practiced in the United States today did not exist in the ancient world. The Greek comedy tradition was well-established by the sixth century BC and contains aspects of sexual farce, parody of 'serious' literary styles, and mockery of specific political and public figures. Comic performers wore characteristic costumes that included fat suits, huge genitalia, and grotesque masks that are still in use in modern comic performances. Greek vases depict these comic characters engaged in antics; I recall in particular a vase depicting two grotesque dwarves helping a third dwarf up a ladder or ramp - Three Stooges level humor.
::::Isaac in the Bible got his name from the laughter of Abraham and Sarah; does this not indicate a sense of humor? Elijah mocks the prophets of Baal, including the suggestion that Baal cannot hear his priests because he is on the toilet.
::::Egyptian papyri show exaggerated caricatures of dishevelled older men engaged in sexual relations with young women, including humorous captions (in heiroglyphics!) detailing the women's commentary on the situation. Other examples of Egyptian pictorial humor include depictions of animals engaged in human activities - like cats herding geese and goats and lions playing board games - juxtaposed with humans engaged in animal activity. A foreign queen is depicted as being so fat that she stands next to an ass with the caption 'the ass needed to carry the queen'.
::::Sumerian scatological humor is recorded (in cuneiform) on a tablet dated to 1900 BC.
::::Many Native American groups had oral traditions that include the 'Trickster' figure, who gets involved in humorous scrapes and mocks authority figures. Many of these stories also include punning wordplay and practical jokes; another dimension of humor.
::::Nineteenth century Australian ethnographers, coming into first contact with an isolated Aboriginal group, noted that the Aboriginals told stories among themselves and laughed during an otherwise stressful time - in this case, a terrible thunderstorm.
::::I'm sure that others could contribute examples from Sanskrit or Asian cultures.
::::So scatological humor, sexual humor, puns, riddles, slapstick, political satire, parody of 'serious' art forms, practical jokes, and others are all documented in pre-Christian or non-Christian cultures.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 09:40, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::: To one with an open mind, your vulgar "examples" tend to reinforce the basic observation: (real) humor was lacking before Christianity. Crudeness or vulgarity or mockery is not true humor, and Greek "comedies" were not attempts at humor in today's sense.

::::: If you had evidence of writings about humor itself, or books of humor, or truly comedic performances, or anything remotely similar to quality humor today, then that could help your argument. But the above examples, if they are the best you have, simply underscore the insight in this essay.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:54, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::: It would have been simpler for you to have simply started with the statement that no 'true humor' existed before Christianity, so that we would have known what sort of Scotsman we were dealing with in the first place. At any rate, the Japanese had [http://www.conservapedia.com/Noh_theater#What_is_Ky.C5.8Dgen.3F mature forms of theater] designed to "draw rich laughter from the audience" before Christianity was introduced to Japan.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 11:02, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::Have you ever watched an ancient Greek comedy? Because I have, and in parts, they are downright hilarious. As people keep saying, you have not explained what you mean by "humor" and so, this conversation would seem to be pointless. However, Aristotle speaks of the history of Greek comedy, including the fact that it was funny! [[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 10:39, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::::: May I ask what is the earliest example of true humor that you know of? While I respect the viewpoint that the above examples are not real humor, I don't know of any new form that emerged very soon after the establishment of Christianity.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:30, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::::::If you are so adament about so called "genuine humor" mr. Schlafly, then please define it for us.

::::::::Clearly there is a distinction to be made between things that are funny and things that are 'humor'. If it was intended to make people laugh, it qualifies as humor, whether it was funny or not. No doubt plenty of movies made by the Zuckers and the Farrelly brothers aren't funny, but they're still comedies. I don't find Groucho Marx very funny but he still counts as a comedian. What you seem to mean is that you don't find pre-Christian humor amusing. That's fine but it hardly counts as one of the 'greatest mysteries of world history'.[[User:Sam99foster|Sam99foster]] 12:09, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::: I agree with Mr Achalfly in that for something to be humorous it needs to have a certain amount of taste and refinement. For example, the article mentions a man getting hit in the crotch by a ball. While some people may find this funny, I daresay there are very few people in the world whi would call this humor. The article also mentions the Jackass movie; again, while a few people may find it amusing, I doubt very many people would define it as humorous. What do these two examples have in common? A lack of taste and refinement. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 13:26, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::::Surely someone with an open mind would find such taste and refinement in ancient Greco-Roman political satire (e.g. from Aristophanes). Humor undeniably existed before Christianity. Let's just put this behind us as a misunderstanding (or even a disagreement over personal preference). [[User:FundieMath|FundieMath]] 13:41, 9 February 2009 (EST)

For the elucidation of all: "''The Oxford Companion to Classical Literature''" describes Aristophanes as an "Athenian comic poet". Eleven of his plays survive. I know of at least one that has been performed in modern times - "''The Wasps''". I have a CD of it (2 CD set actually) Originally, it was produced in 422 B.C. and is a satirical comedy, poking fun at the Athenian jury system of the time and the state of contemporary politics. It is a comedy of manners, with elements of parody, occasional crudity and slapstick. Sounds like the Restoration writers to me. Or Voltaire. Even Shakespeare indulged in a bit of crudity at times. Modern productions, of course, update some of the scenes.

Aristophanes, who is still read and studied, is only one of many writers of comedies in those times. There was an annual competition for comedy. (''The Wasps'' came 2nd in its year.) Aristophanes' style has been copied by classically trained playwrights since...the Frenchman, Racine, for instance.

The above Oxford Companion devotes over 3 tightly printed pages to ancient Greek and Roman comedy, as well as many mentioned writers getting their own articles. Perhaps we today would not find as funny, but scenes in Shakespeare that had them rolling around in the aisles in 1600 do not quite have that power today. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 14:40, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:remove indent) ETundel, you are confusing "I find it funny" with "it is intended as Humor." I don't find Jackass funny myself, but it is still considered humour. It may be very low comedy, which it is and not everyone will like it, but the fact remains that something does not cease to be "humour" just because X amount of people don't find it funny. [[User:StephenK|StephenK]] 16:25, 9 February 2009 (EST)

The above discussion is interesting, and I'd like to learn more about "The Wasps." But certainly much of the above, such as vulgarity, is not "humor" as defined primarily by the dictionary: the "ludicrous" or (more importantly) the "absurdly incongruous."

There are dim-witted people who are amused by compulsive profanity or, as on this site, by mindless vandalism. Parody and sarcasm is also immensely entertaining to the easily amused. But this is not "humor" as defined by the dictionary, and I still haven't seen any compelling examples of pre-Christian humor. A performance like "Trading Places" would qualify, but it didn't exist.

It's interesting how strenuously some people object to the proposition that humor did not predate Christianity. Surely your minds are not so closed as to think the proposition to be automatically impossible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:48, 9 February 2009 (EST)

: Here you go Andy, here is the full text of "The Wasps" for you to read at your leisure here[http://classics.mit.edu/Aristophanes/wasps.html]. You can judge for yourself if you find it humorous. Honestly, I'm surprised that you're surprised; you throw out a proposition that runs counter to even the most basic understanding of behavior and psychology, basically saying that before Christ nobody knew how to be genuinely funny, and are surprised when people question that? Having an open mind doesn't mean you accept everything to be true. --[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 18:19, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::(EC)"But certainly much of the above, such as vulgarity, is not "humor" as defined primarily by the dictionary"
::Presumably if ANY of the above is humor as defined by the dictionary, then there was humor that pre-dated Christianity. If Aristophanes wrote a political satire ("a satirical comedy, poking fun ... at the state of contemporary politics"), would that not make it a humorous piece of work by any normal definition?[[User:Sam99foster|Sam99foster]] 18:28, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::: ShawnJ and Sam99foster, please answer my question: are you saying that you believe the proposition to be automatically impossible??? It sure sounds that way from some of the closed-minded postings above. Note, by the way, that satire is not "humor" per its primary dictionary definition.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:42, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::: No Andy, I don't find it automatically impossible, I find it impossible after brief consideration. That means I gave your question thought, and found its position to be ludicrous. The question infers that somehow, before Christ, humans did not have access to the full range of their emotions. You can argue over how humor, like ethics and morality, have changed over the years, but it doesn't stop them from existing. Rejecting the notion that humor didn't exist before Christ is not an example of closed-mindedness any more than rejecting the notion that 2+2=76 is. --[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 23:22, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::: Andy, why do you assume that we're automatically dismissing the notion? We are using historical facts and examples which you yourself seem to be dismissing out of hand without giving them any thought. Case in point, your two line rebuttal to a whole list of examples on the grounds that they are all "vulgar." Well, what's vulgar about this? "Other examples of Egyptian pictorial humor include depictions of animals engaged in human activities - like cats herding geese and goats and lions playing board games - juxtaposed with humans engaged in animal activity." Nothing sexual, crude, or otherwise off-color here, just a '''ludicrous''' and '''absurdly incongruous''' situation that could only be intended as humorous, and yet you, without apparently even reading what the user posted, flippantly dismiss it for some reason unbeknownst to the rest of us.

::::: Now, although you are somewhat correct in saying that comedy did not mean the same thing to the ancient Greeks that it does to a modern audience, you blindly overlook two other important points. First, that ancient definition of comedy--or a version of it (Boethian, to be exact)--lasted long past the birth of Christianity. Dante and Shakespeare both wrote their comedies under this ancient definition, which is why something like the The Divine Comedy is called, well, a comedy, despite the fact that the first third of it details brutal torture and punishment without any humor whatsoever, or at least none that I can recall off the top of my head. In essence, to credit Christianity with the rise of modern "comedy" simply because of the history of that word and the genre it represents misses the mark by at least 1500-1600 years.

::::: More importantly, you ignore the fact that Greeks also had a third dramatic form, the satyr play (from which we derive the English word "satire"), which was very close to what we mean by modern comedy. Fewer of these have survived, but the express purpose of these plays was to generate laughter, which is why they were named after satyrs, who were presumed to be pranksters in Greek myth. Very often, these plays simply relied on ludicrous and absurd situations to get the audience laughing. Often these were crude, yes, but not exclusively so.

::::: We aren't automatically dismissing the idea. We're dismissing the idea because it is objectively wrong and every single shred of evidence indicates the exact opposite, even when working within your incredibly limited definition of "humor." --[[User:JakeLa|Jake Lassiter]] 10:10, 12 February 2009 (EST)

Sir, since you say parody is not humor, is [[Essay:Born_Outside_the_U.S.A.!|this]], therefore, not funny?

[[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 19:57, 9 February 2009 (EST)

: Do you often speak in non sequiturs?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:00, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:: How is that a non-sequitur? You argue that parody and satire are not humor, so I point you to something that you presumably wrote as a humorous piece. You certainly didn't reject the accolades that termed it funny.

::: You argue, ''"Note, by the way, that satire is not "humor" per its primary dictionary definition."'' What dictionary are you using? [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/humor According to Merriam-Webster's on-line dictionary], this is the definition of humor in the context with which we are concerned (the others definitions concern the dated usage referring to the human body):

* that quality which appeals to a sense of the ludicrous or absurdly incongruous
* the mental faculty of discovering, expressing, or appreciating the ludicrous or absurdly incongruous
* something that is or is designed to be comical or amusing

Parody and satire seem to fit both the first and third. If you disagree, please explain why.

So, what is your definition? You've not provided one yet; you've merely said "humor is not (fill in the blank)".

I view humor as a gift from God. It allows us to get through our most troubling times. The idea that humor only existed after Christ is as alien to me as the idea that romantic love only existed after Christ. [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 20:19, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::: I apologize to Mr. Schlafly in that I charged that he had not provided a definition of humor -- he had, and it was, embarrassingly enough, the same one I cited. This topic has become long, and I missed his definition.

::: However, I still ask this: how do parody and satire '''''not''''' fit that definition?

::: Mr. Schlafly also cites the film ''Trading Places'' as an example of humor. Well, Eddie Murphy was never one of my favorites, since, particularly during the time he made that movie, he was extraordinarily foul-mouthed. But... as I understand it, plot of the movie is two people from different worlds trade lives, and we see how they both handle it, or fail to do so.

::: That strikes me as something that has to be one of the oldest jokes imaginable -- laughing at the "fish out of water" concept. I can easily imagine two Egyptian peasants, toiling down in the Nile Delta, lightening their day by laughing at the thought of the Pharaoh having to do their jobs for a while. "He'd be worried about getting his robes dirty!" "He probably couldn't even fill ten bushels of reeds!" (Of course, "ten bushels of reeds" isn't funny to us, but it might be hilarious to the guy who could pick thirty bushels before a lunch break.)

::: Now, admittedly, I'm speculating, but so is Mr. Schlafly. And I think my speculation is quite reasonable -- ancient people laughing at a concept we still find funny. He, by contrast, apparently imagines humanity consisted of a collection of dour sourpusses and/or vulgarians who couldn't appreciate anything beyond a flatulence joke until somewhere between 1 and 30 AD.

::: He also charges those of us who don't see his viewpoint of being close-minded. Sorry, no -- it is not close-minded to expect extraordinary proof for an extraordinary claim. If I said, "perhaps, until Christ was born, the sky was green and the grass was blue", you'd be justified in taking that with a huge grain of salt -- particularly if you presented me with some evidence that, in 200 BC, the sky was blue and the grass was green, and I responded with "well, that's not really ''blue'' and ''green'', that's ''cobalt'' and ''emerald''." [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 08:47, 10 February 2009 (EST)

I'm new here but I don't understand this one. What has Christianity got to do with humour? In any case, the answer is "yes" - as contributors above suggest, go and read (or even better, watch) Aristophanes. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 20:10, 9 February 2009 (EST)
::Whilst shopping just now I nicked into my local newsagency-cum-bookshop. There were Penguin Classics editions on the shelf of Aristophanes' ''Frogs'', ''The Birds'', ''Lysistrata'' and ''The Clouds''. This not a big shop....so it seems old Aristophanes is alive and kicking, if only as part of a subject at university. (I must admit that I only have the ''Wasps'' CDs because of the wonderful RVW incidental music written for a Cambridge Uni dramatic society performance in 1909, but it shows that he is not completely out of date and that his wit can be applied to modern circumstance.) The word ''wit'' is what I keep coming across regards his plays.[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 20:40, 9 February 2009 (EST)

==="Ancient humor"===
One thing I think many of Mr. Schlafay's detractors are overlooking is the possibility that the works we refer to as "comedies" today might not have been intended as comedies in their own time. The word "[[comedy]]" is English (as are all the other words used to describe Aristophanes' work: [[joke]], [[humor]], etc.), so we are in effect relying on modern translators of Ancient Greek to tell us what the Ancient Greeks thought about their own literary works.

The other day I was looking out my [[window]] and saw two [[squirrel]]s chasing each other up and down a [[tree]] trunk. Suddenly the lead squirrel stopped and turned around so suddenly that the other squirrel bumped into its head and fell off the tree! (It was only six feet or so off the ground, so the squirrel was unharmed.) I laughed at this funny occurrence — but of course the two squirrels weren't ''trying'' to put on a funny show for me; they were just doing what comes naturally to animals. Perhaps when we look into our history books and see the funny things that were done by Aristophanes, we should keep these two squirrels in mind. I think Mr. Schlafay was speaking particularly about the ''conscious'' exercise of humor — the ''intention'' to do funny things, not simply the ''fact'' of having done funny things. Nobody can seriously argue that nothing funny ever happened in antiquity... but ''why'' did it happen? that's the question. --[[User:GarthA|GarthA]] 21:48, 9 February 2009 (EST)

: That's an excellent point. Some of the ancient vulgarity, for example, was probably not intended to be "funny" any more than compulsive profanity today is intended to be funny. Someone 1000 years from now may look at dialog between two public school students today as being absolutely hilarious, even though the students are not trying to be funny now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:24, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:: The City Dionysia, which is the festival where these plays were preformed had several highly established conventions, including that four plays were to be preformed by each group: three tragedies and then a comedy. Comedies by nature are funny. While vulgar humor was indeed used, they still fit the definition of comedy ("a drama of light and amusing character and typically with a happy ending" according to Merriam-Webster). Whether people find them funny is up to them (I happen to like Scrubs, while my brother despises the show. However, he likes Family Guy, which I dislike). But the original intent of the comedies was to make people laugh, which qualifies it as humor [[User:ENorman|ENorman]] 22:45, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::That's very clever thinking, Garth. Fortunately, we have contemporary reviews of the work of authors like Aristophanes, which described them as being humorous (or in some cases not humorous enough!).
::I suspect that this debate might be in order to get people thinking outside the box while at the same time testing their composure. Of course, humor could have not predated Christianity and of course, that is not the case. But how are you going to react when someone doggedly pursues the contrary? How are you going to react when someone refuses to define their terms or moves the goalpost or shifts ground? Will you calmly research and respond? Or will you resort to liberal deceit and condescend to them. Not only should you survey the responses you see here, you should also be doing research of your own before you form your conclusions.
::If you do your research, you will probably find the evidence for pre-Christian humor that you find compelling. Either way, come back here and attempt to argue your point. Remember to stay calm, approachable and accommodating. I urge you to engage in this exercise and wish you the best. [[User:FundieMath|FundieMath]] 22:53, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:::Garth, there were no "''funny things done by Aristophanes''" any more than there were ''funny things done by'' humorous writers of modern times. He wrote plays, in verse, using the formal dramatic restraints of his day. In 5th century Athens there were two distinct forms of stage performances. There were the Tragedies, the most famed writers of which are Euripides and Aeschylus; and the Comedies, represented today by our mate Aristophanes. Never the twain did meet. They probably both developed out of pre-Classical Dionysian ritual, but by Classical times they were distinct from each other. Unlike the tragedians, Aristophanes set out to make people laugh; and to do this he used many of the forms used today - funny or fantastical situations, plays on words, ridicule of people in power, etc., He is supposed to have been very witty. He had a way with words. He was also a serious man who was concerned at perceived faults in the society he lived in, and used humor as a weapon against these things. He is recorded as saying "comedy knows what is right." He brought the powerful down a peg or two. My "Dictionary of Greek Civilisation", a book set for university courses during the 1970s, called him "a comic genius". [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 22:57, 9 February 2009 (EST)

Mr. Schlafay: Thank you. ENorman and "Fundie": It sounds like you are resorting to [[appeal to authority]] in this case. Remember that we do not actually have "contemporary reviews" of Aristophanes; what we have are ''modern translations'' of those works. I'm not even sure we would be justified in calling them "reviews", as you did, since I doubt the Ancient Greeks had anything like the modern conception of a film review or book review. "Fundie", I'm glad we agree about the value of exercise. AlanE: If Aristophanes never did anything funny, then in what sense was he a comedian? You describe him as a "serious man" who "ridicule[d] people in power"; this Aristophanes sounds like something of a [[liberal]] [[radical]]! :) --[[User:GarthA|GarthA]] 23:10, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:Who were the "liberals" - those in power or Aristophanes? Let's not bring today's concepts into describing someone who lived 2500years ago. He was not a comedian any more than Jonathan Swift was when he used ''Gulliver's Travels'' to lampoon the foibles of his age. Have you read him? The use of comedy to prick the inflated egos of the powerful, whether they be politicians, judges, or whatever, has a long and noble history, both for those on the left and on the right. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:49, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:: This is so ignorant it's just adorable:

:: <blockquote>"I'm not even sure we would be justified in calling them "reviews", as you did, since I doubt the Ancient Greeks had anything like the modern conception of a film review or book review."</blockquote>

:: What in the wide wide world of sports do you think Aristotle's ''Poetics'' was? --[[User:JakeLa|Jake Lassiter]] 10:33 12 February 2009

:Remember to do a little research! The first line of Aristophanes' ''[http://classics.mit.edu/Aristophanes/frogs.html The Frogs]'':
::<blockquote>XANTHIAS: Shall I crack any of those old jokes, master, At which the audience never fail to laugh?</blockquote>
:I'm almost positive there is some implication of humor somewhere in there! Form your own conclusions! [[User:FundieMath|FundieMath]] 23:32, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:::Well done, Fundie! [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:51, 9 February 2009 (EST)
::::Having read this controversy with interest, I am forced to agree with Mr Schalfly. There is a difference between the theatre of cruelty - sarcasm and cruel raillery - that was the hallmark of the pagan Greeks, and true humour, which to be effective needs access to the depths of ones heart and soul, a perspective that only became real through the incarnation and suffering of Christ. Similarly, the coarseness of peasant nonsense such as was available to primitive peoples - the ancient equivalent of gurning through horse collars - has no right to be defined as humour. What Mr Schlafly is attempting to describe (albeit to a deliberately unreceptive audience) is something wiser, something altogether more refined and insightful. I wish him luck in persuading the unpersuadable. [[User:RegalBruin|RegalBruin]] 14:25, 10 February 2009 (EST)
:::::Hi and welcome to CP, Regal! I'm interested in your view of my quote from ''The Frogs'' (above) in light of CP's definition of [[Humor]]:

:::::<blockquote>Humor is an act, statement, or other form of communication done to invoke laughter, amusement, or happiness in the audience.</blockquote>

:::::If you agree that Xanthias intended to invoke laughter by cracking jokes and continue to believe that this is not humor, please explain how you would like to see our definition of 'humor' changed. [[User:MattL|MattL]] 14:41, 10 February 2009 (EST)
::::::And G'day from me, Regal. Can you tell us what dictionary you use? All of mine say more or less the same things. What is refined humour,? Wise humour. Insightful humour. Can we have examples? BTW, all the things you find detestable in so-called ''pagan'' humour is found unabated in Chaucer and the ''Decamaron'' and the other medieval story-tellers. Shakespeare used it. Scatalogical humour was the rage through most of the reformation times and later. Mozart wrote scatalogical songs. The bedroom farce has always been popular - we had no senior churchmen refusing to go to ''The Marriage of Figaro''. The Greeks laughed at the dolt and so do we - hence the undying popularity of the Inspector Clouseau type character through history. Nothing changed. No one is denying that much pagan humour was coarse; but what I am saying is that it has never stopped being coarse, and I am also saying that before Christ there was humour of the kind that we find in Wodehouse or Wilde, and the one-liners of Groucho Marx or Dorothy Parker, which are clever because they manage to nail an aspect of the human condition in so few words. Aristophanes could do that.(Unlike I, who go on and on...:))[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 15:58, 10 February 2009 (EST)

::::::: It appears that discussing humor with [[atheists]] is a fool's errand because they, like the ancient Greeks, are unable (or refuse) to open their minds to what real humor is. I've defined it several times, as does the dictionary; it is something "ludicrous" or "absurdly incongruous." Vulgarities may amuse the simple-minded to no end, and so may slapstick comedy (which is all the "Frogs" is referencing in its opening line), but it's not humor.

::::::: We've learned something from this discussion. It's not just the pre-Christians who were without humor, but so are [[atheists]] today. It's unfortunate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:57, 10 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::::"Ludicrous": amusing or laughable through obvious absurdity, incongruity, exaggeration, or eccentricity; causing laughter because of absurdity; broadly or extravagantly humorous, resembling farce. All of these definitions are fulfilled in the examples that have already been stated in this discussion. For that matter, they are all fulfilled by the image on [http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/highlight_objects/gr/r/wine_bowl,_apulia.aspx this vase in the British Museum] from the fourth century BC.
::::::::::If your second paragraph is meant to imply that your whole premise behind claiming that there was no humor before Christianity was to poke fun of atheists - since only atheists are so humorless as to take such a ludicrous proposition seriously - then I am afraid that your Modest Proposal has been found lacking.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 18:48, 10 February 2009 (EST)

:::::::: Now that we've established that humor is a post-Christian phenomenon, we would do well to explore it's origins within Christianity. Do you have early Christian examples? [[User:MattL|MattL]] 17:03, 10 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::: In regards to something ludicrous or absurdly incongruous, from Plutarch's ''The Comparison of Demosthenes and Cicero'':

:::::::::<blockquote>So also we are told that when Cicero, being consul, undertook the defence of Murena against Cato's prosecution, by way of bantering Cato, he made a long series of jokes upon the absurd paradoxes, as they are called, of the Stoic set; so that a loud laughter passing from the crowd to the judges, Cato, with a quiet smile, said to those that sat next him, "My friends, what an amusing consul we have."</blockquote> We can plainly see that this is absurd. Now for the incongruity - A paradox, as defined by MW, is "a statement that is seemingly contradictory or opposed to common sense and yet is perhaps true". Incongruous, as defined by MW, describes "something inconsistent with itself". Could this possibly be an example of humor? [[User:MattL|MattL]] 17:11, 10 February 2009 (EST)

Merriam-Webster also says that humor is "something that is or is designed to be comical or amusing." Doesn't that describe Aristophanes? [[User:BenjaminC|BenjaminC]] 17:38, 10 February 2009 (EST)
:It seems that I go away an hour and suddenly I am "without humour" and an atheist,Andy. Why have you reverted to (a) being personal to someone whose sense of humour you know nothing about and who has based his arguments on basic well-documented scholarly texts in a generally polite manner and (b)decided on a definition of humour that is at odds with every dictionary and encyclopedia I can find? Whether I am a Methodist, atheist, Catholic or calathumpian has nothing to do with the my arguments which, like most of my words in this site, are based on a lifetime of reading the canon of western literature and about it. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 20:20, 10 February 2009 (EST)
:::I don't know why Mr Schlafly should have to defend himself against such an intemperate passive-aggressive assault. And if, as you claim, you are an expert on the entire canon of western culture, I should expect to find you in concordance with his ideas. [[User:RegalBruin|RegalBruin]] 11:50, 11 February 2009 (EST)
::::I didn't say, nor mean to imply, I was "''an expert on the entire canon of western culture''", Regal. What I can say is that that I, especially in this case, is that I am basing my statements on books (you know...those old fashioned things with pages that people used to read and geriatrics like me still do - I own thousands of them and have read untold thousands more.) So if I talk about the humour in Chaucer or Shakespeare, or mention Voltaire, or Beaumarchais (who? he says), Regal, it's because I've been there, mate, and done that, and have the tee shirt. (Even if, half the time now I have forgotten where I've put it!) Now, I assume you are being silly, perhaps "parodical", in your final phrase, but I am not in the mood. Andrew Schafly might be able to turn off severe sciatica with a quick prayer, but I can't; so I want to take it out on people: and seeing its not yet dawn and the rest of the family is still fast asleep, that means you! So do me one favour...go and find one reference - just one - from a reputable reference source, that "humour" started with Christianity. (And while you are at it, try and help Andrew by finding a reference for the Chinese inventing bamboo.)[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 14:03, 11 February 2009 (EST)

::The assumption that anyone who disagrees with Mr. S must be an atheist is indeed a pretty flimsy deflecting tactic. The claim being debated is not quite as bizarre as saying that there was no epic poetry before Christ.
::I'll chime in re the claim that the pagans had only farcical, bawdy, dirty type humor. I'm only familiar with 2 Aristophanes plays, ''Lysistrata'' and ''The Clouds''. ''Lysistrata'' does have a bawdy premise - the women of Greece conspire to not go to bed with their husbands until they end their war - but the play's point was political, not sexual, and it spoke on a real contemporary topic (the Peloponessian War) and addressed leading politicians by name. ''Clouds'' is a purely intellectual satire, making fun of the sophists in general and Socrates in particular. (Soc. was not actually a sophist but was apparently identified with them.) There are also a few poop jokes thrown in there, but that's no different from a lot of intellectual comedy today: I think of ''Little Miss Sunshine,'' that had jokes about Proust and Nietzshe, but also jokes about the dirty old grandfather character.
::My favorite thing about ''Clouds'' is that the main butt of the jokes, Socrates, was ''actually there in the audience'' watching it. The intro to my copy says that at the performance, the mask for the Socrates actor was such a good caricature, they had Socrates himself stand up so the audience could applaud the mask maker. [[User:Fishal|Fishal]] 20:36, 10 February 2009 (EST)
:::A lot of this boils down to arguing definitions - a fruitless argument that could go on endlessly if we had nothing better to do. What does interest me is the idea of a new form of humor emerging during or after the life of Jesus. Does anyone have any examples of a first- or second-century shift towards more refined types of humor? Perhaps "What is the earliest example of genuine humor" could be added to the list of mysteries?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:47, 11 February 2009 (EST)
::::I don't know if this has been brought up, but it appears that Mr. Schlafly doesn't find the "crude" humour entertaining (nothing wrong with that, it'd not everybody's thing) but what about wordplay and the double negative? I sumbit my favorite passage from Homer's Odyssey: When captured by the Cyclops, Odysseus tells him that his name is "Nobody." Later, after they attack the Cyclops and blind him, he storms around his cave in a rage screaming "Nobody will not get out alive" a double negative, and then calls to his brothers that "Nobody has blinded me, Nobody has blinded me." The Cyclops thinks he is calling for help, but not understanding what he is actually saying, his brothers misunderstand him and stay away... This type of humour leads directly to the modern examples of Abbott and Costello's "Who's on First?" routine, as well as the Chico and Groucho's constant back and forth in their movies "Chico:(looking at a Contract) What'sa this?" "Groucho: That's just the standard Sanity Clause" "Chico:You can't fool me, there ain't no Sanity Claus." [[User:StephenK|StephenK]] 12:15, 11 February 2009 (EST)

:::Apologies for coming in on this debate so late, but I am a student of Theatre and I would like to put my two cents in. It's certainly not a sign of stupidity to question the origins of comedic humor. Like anything else, everything has an origin and the birth of Christianity is just as good a measuring stick as any other.

:::That being said, I do indeed believe that humor as it has been defined here predates Christianity. The plays of Plautus and Terrence especially come to mind. Mr. Schlafly, you cited specifically the film ''Trading Places'', yes? Well one of the Roman Plautus's more well known plays, ''Menaechmi'' is similar in wit and predates the birth of Christ by...I believe around two hundred years, though I could be wrong on the exact number. It specifically deals with a pair of estranged twins and ultimately draws it's comedy from their machinations when the come together in Sicily and one twin's wife mistakes the other for her husband while her real husband is getting back at her by giving away some of her belongings to a prostitute. It is a play whose intention is to evoke laughter and gaiety through use of situational irony and circumstance. The "mistaken identity" theme is a widely recognized hallmark of humor and the play's was later adapted by William Shakespeare in "A Comedy of Errors". This is only a single example and if it is insufficient to convince you then I can provide more. --[[User:NicholasT|NicholasT]] 12:20, 29 April 2009 (EDT)

==Who was right - Catholics or Protestants?==

Can you explain what you mean by this question? It's a bit like asking - who is right, Christians of Buddhists? Do you mean, regarding Transubstantiation? Or do you mean celibacy? Or the infallibility of the Pope? Maybe you could phrase it a little more clearly? Finally, do you think it's helpful to the world to see the world like this? Doesn't every faith believe it's 'right'? [[User:TadghOB|TadghOB]] 17:10, 9 February 2009 (EST)

: Surely you don't think that just because different people hold different views that each think are right, truth therefore does not exist. If I told that some cultures believe that 2+2 equals infinity, and are convinced they are right, would that change your view that 2+2=4 and not infinity?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:50, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::Well, yes, I do? Despite my own faith, I cannot in all sincerity tell a Buddhist that their faith is nonsense - I simply don't believe that's a way to get along with the rest of the planet, the pursuit of which is, after all, is our bounden duty here on this Earth. My own faith (Catholicism) has experienced many controversies, and although I hold fast to my faith, I acknowledge that it is not without its flaws and appalling mistakes. Jesus taught us to "love thy neighbour", after all. But to return to the question at hand - "who is right, Catholics or Protestants?". As an Irish Catholic married to an Irish Protestant, I'm sure you'll understand there's a great deal of sensitivity over this issue on our Island. And I'm certainly not about to tell my partner that her beliefs are 'wrong'. But what 'right' are you referring to? [[User:TadghOB|TadghOB]] 19:06, 9 February 2009 (EST)

To keep this conversation from devolving into an ideological argument, I thought I might try to clarify the original question: I interpret it as referring to the issues at the heart of the Protestant Reformation, namely the allegations of abuses of power within the Catholic Church, the selling of indulgences, the lack of reliance on Scripture, etc. Some of these are purely theological points, but I think historical discussion can bring light to the issue of whether or not the Protestants were justified in some of their more pragmatic claims. --[[User:Economist|Economist]] 19:13, 9 February 2009 (EST)

: In reply to TadghOB, one thing about Jesus is indisputable: He did tell others they were wrong, and was very clear that He was divisive rather than uniting.

: In reply to Economist, there is the issue of how to deal with the problems, and what the subsequent centuries and today illustrate. I'm not yet taking a position on the question, but am pointing out how your list is incomplete.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:25, 9 February 2009 (EST)

== Why did Islam grow so rapidly? ==

Not sure there's a lot of mystery here. The rise of Islam is well documented in both Arab and Byzantine sources. The "mystery", if there is one, is how Mohammed managed to convert a sizeable number of followers in his lifetime and how they became organised into a small but effective military force. Thereafter, Islam spread for several reasons. Initially, it was confined to Arab soldiers and their families and was something of an elite religion. But the Arabs were generally welcomed by the common people in the Byzantine territories because they imposed lighter taxes, their military levies were less oppressive and they didn't cut people's heads off because they disagreed with the Emperor's theological opinions. The same factors are reflected in the decline of the Byzantine empire, to the benefit of the Arabs in West Asia and North Africa: excessive taxation, too many able-bodied men from wealthy families joining the priesthood to evade military service, and continuous demoralisation of the population through religious disputes. Added to that was the over-centralisation of power in the Byzantine Empire, with the result that when the Emperor was out of action, there were few men with both the authority and the competence to wield power effectively. Such was the situation at the decisive Battle of the Yarmouk, in what is now northern Jordan, when the Emperor Heraclius was ill and unable to take the field, resulting in a decisive victory for the Arabs.

Islam spread in the territories conquered by the Arabs for similar reasons to the spread of Christianity in Europe: local rulers ingratiating themselves with their overlord (the Arab Caliph in this case), the prestige of being part of the official religion, the apparent evidence that God must favour the Muslims because he enabled them to win battles, and lower taxation for Muslims.

It's much harder to understand why the Byzantine Empire lasted as long as it did. Also, why did the Arabs not conquer most of the West? The post-Roman kingdoms in the West seem to have been more organised and effective than historians gave them credit for until recently.

See e.g. John Julius Norwich's history of Byzantium (three volumes but extremely - even addictively - readable). Also 'The Formation of Christendom' by Judith Herrin, the standard modern work on the interplay of Church and State in the Byzantine Empire; she shows that the church wasn't always a negative influence, as Edward Gibbon supposed. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 20:06, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:In addition to Fred's information above, Islam burst out of Arabia at a time when both the Byzantines and the Persians were completely exhausted from fighting each other interminably. There is also talk of a plague epidemic that wasted the so-called civilised powers but had little effect in the sparcely populated Arabian desert. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 20:52, 9 February 2009 (EST)

== Romans ==

''Did the Romans recognize or understand the concept of "truth"?''

What reason do you have to think that they did not? We would surely disagree with any ancient people (not just the Romans) about whether certain ideas are true or false, but that would not mean that the people did not understand the ''concept'' of truth. What meaning do you think the word ''veritas'' had for the Romans?--[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 07:18, 20 February 2009 (EST)

== Literacy in Ancient Greece ==

I don't know what the literacy level is in the USA but let's guess at 98-99%. In ancient Greece, the people who were able to read were free, male city dwellers - and by no means all of them. Perhaps 1% of the population could read. Not sure why this one is on the list of mysteries, because it isn't one. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 19:11, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

== Decline and fall of the Roman Empire ==

This is at the other end of the spectrum - i.e. a truly unsolved problem which has been a rich subject for academic research and debate. Many books have been written about this subject so you need some kind of strategy to assemble a decent essay on the subject. I would say it's more accurate to write about the ''transformation'' of the Roman Empire, not its fall. The Eastern half of the Roman Empire as divided by Diocletian became the Eastern Roman Empire, governed from Constantinople. The Western half became a set of independent kingdoms ruled by Germanic tribes. The territory of both the Western and Eastern halves of the Empire on the southern shore of the Mediterranean, plus the Levant, became part of the Arab Caliphate. All these successor states relied heavily on Roman methods of administration and law. Arguably, the ''only'' part of the Empire that actually declined and fell, insofar as the lives of ordinary people were concerned, was England.

Some of the more important causes of the decline (transformation):
* Environmental degradation of farmland.
* The permanent state of civil war for over 50 years in the middle of the 3rd century.
* Over-centralisation of power in the hands of the emperors from the late 3rd century onwards, partly as a reaction to the instability of the 3rd century.
* Outsourcing - i.e. the replacement of Roman manpower in the army by German mercenaries.
* The sapping of the numbers of young men who could serve in the army, especially as officers, because ordination as a priest or even a deacon precluded military service.
* The decline in the tax base, because priests and monks didn't have to pay taxes.
* Population pressure as tribes (e.g. the Huns) were forced westward by the failure of farming in central Asia.
* The Great Plague of c.535, which may have been even more destructive than the Black Death.
* Interminable religious disputes diverted much of the empire's intellectual effort.
* As ever in history, chance. The Emperor Heraclius, possibly the greatest general of all Roman emperors, fell ill at a critical moment. The Arabs, on the other hand, were commanded by their greatest general, Khalid ibn al-Walid, and, against all expectations, won what is now called the Battle of the Yarmouk in 636.
[[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 19:40, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

== Did the Hebrews build the pyramids? ==

Almost certainly not. If you mean the Pyramids of Giza, including the Great Pyramid of Khufu, they were built in the 4th Dynasty (c.2500BC), about a millennium before Joseph. I don't know where the Hebrews were at that time, but it wasn't Egypt. The last of the significant pyramids in Egypt was built in the 12th Dynasty, c.1860BC, a good 200 years before Joseph.

According to the Bible, which should be considered semi-historical evidence, Joseph used a chariot but chariots didn't appear in Egypt till c.1650BC.

So: no, and not a mystery. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 19:52, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

== How were the pyramids built? ==

This isn't known for sure but calling it a mystery rather demeans the excellent archaeological research on the subject. [http://www.archaeology.org/0705/etc/pyramid.html Here's a good, accessible article.] [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 20:00, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

== Origin of the name Jesus ==

Jesus, pronounced ''Dzheezus'' in English, is the Latin version of his name (pronounced ''Yaysoos''). In turn, that's the Latin spelling of the Greek version of his name (same pronounciation as in Latin). And that's the Hellenised version of the Hebrew name Yehoshua. Which, as it happens, has come into English by a more direct route as Joshua.

The only thing that might seem slightly curious here is the sound shift from ''Y'' to ''J'' at the beginning of the word. This came about because the letters ''I'' and ''J'' were used indiscriminantly by English printers in the late middle ages. By the time the letter J finally entered the English alphabet (early 17th century, I think), Latin words which the Romans spelt with a initial ''I'' (e.g. Iulius Caesar) had come to be spelt with an initial ''J'' in English (hence Julius Caesar). So then they acquired the pronounciation ''J'', as in the very common names James and John.

Again, I don't know why you call this a mystery. This is pretty well known and very easy to look up if you don't know it. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 20:11, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

== Reply to the Above ==

Fred, thanks for your attempt to solve the mystery, but I've got news for you: your spelling is atrocious and you're absurdly wrong in claiming that literacy in the U.S. is 98% or 99%. It's nowhere near that high.

The liberals who are running [[public schools]], and whom you likely support, are producing millions of illiterates each year. And it's getting worse thanks to how you likely vote. I know, you don't think it's your fault, but someone is electing these people who are perpetrating illiteracy. Fortunately, some parents are waking up to the problem, even if voters aren't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:44, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

* Spelling: I wrote ''we'' instead of ''were'' at one point in the 'Decline and Fall' section but apart from that, you'll have to tell me what my spelling mistakes are because I don't see them.
* Why does anything I've written make you assume I'm a liberal?
* Your criticism of public schools is a 'straw man' argument. Scotland (where I live) has almost entirely public education and a very high literacy rate. Likewise the Scandinavian countries, Holland, etc. Maybe there's something wrong with public education in the USA but it's too simplistic just to blame any problems on the fact that schools are public ''per se''.
* So you'll have gathered I haven't voted for anyone who's perpetuated illiteracy in the USA.
* Even so, I don't believe literacy in the USA is as low as 1-2%, which is what it was in Ancient Greece.
* Finally, are you always so rude to contributors? I hope you don't behave like that to the schoolkids you tutor. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 07:33, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

:: [https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2103.html The CIA World Factbook concurs] with Mister Ferguson -- 99% literacy (defined as "age 15 and over can read and write"), both male and female, in the United States. [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 08:35, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

::: Don't believe everything the government says, obviously. Illiteracy is rampant in many public schools, and among millions of adults in the U.S.

::::Care to cite a source (like I did)? You merely say "millions of adults" -- well, there's 220 million adults in the United States. If 1% of them cannot read, that's 2.2 million -- in other words, "millions". I'll grant, 99% literacy seems high, especially if you're looking at functional literacy (that is, able to read and write well enough to function in society) versus ability to read and write at all (my five year old niece can read and write a smidge, but certainly not well enough to hold a job!), but you act as if half the population couldn't read anything more than the cutesy graphics on the front page of USA Today. [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 10:28, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

::: Fred, I'm surprised you think my reply was "rude", yet seem to have no problem with your own postings. As to spellings, "indiscriminantly"? "Pronounciation"? Please. Also, don't try to fool anyone into thinking you're not a liberal. We are a truthful resource here and we disclose our point of view up-front. Do likewise or find another site to rant on. Wikipedia likes people who hide their point of view. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:50, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

:::: * Whoops! Tripped up on two of the trickier words in the English language. Maybe you'd better take a blue pencil to your own contributions - they're not exactly flawless either.
:::: * "Liberal" - please answer my question. What, exactly, is liberal about what I've written above?
:::: * You're very fond of accusing people of ranting, aren't you? I've seen you say that to other people. But stating the facts and arguing logically isn't ranting. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 10:07, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

Can we focus on the facts, please? [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] has brought up some interesting points - let's discuss those, rather than who is the better speller. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:12, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::This is the Fred Ferguson who claimed his spelling was immaculate, and when his errors were pointed out responded with a blase, "Oh, those are the two most difficult words in the English Language, so it doesn't really count", is it? the Fred Ferguson who thinks that ad homs are an adequate replacement for logical debate? I'm sure his points are very valid indeed! [[User:RaviS|RaviS]] 11:07, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::: And your point is...? I don't see the relevance of this to the facts of the discussion. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 11:12, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::::I dare say you don't. However, I have grave doubts about whether your 'fact'-mongering is carried out with the intention of helping to build up Conservapedia. Given the nature of these 'facts', and of your attitude, I suspect quite the opposite. [[User:RaviS|RaviS]] 12:53, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
: LITERACY: I crunched some numbers. According to the CIA World Fact Book, the population of the US is 303,824,640. 20.1% of that is children 0-14 years,w ho are presumably still working on literacy. Leave them out and that gives 303,824,640*0.799 = 242,755,887 adults. Now if 99% of those are literate, how many are not? 242,755,887*0.01 = 2,427,559. Thus even if 99% of Americans are literate, there are still two and a half million American adults who are illiterate. So we can have BOTH millions of illiterate Americans AND 99% literacy. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:19, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

::I found some interesting reading on literacy in the US in [http://nces.ed.gov/pubs93/93275.pdf this report]. I have not read it all (I have to get back to teaching and laundry and bread baking), but I think it will prove worthwhile for those interested in seriously discussing this topic. Note that it provides a more complex picture of literacy than just "literate" vs. "illiterate". I would be interested also in reading something about literacy in Ancient Greece. My layman's impression is that women and slaves were generally not taught to read, which, if accurate, would imply that there was significantly less literacy in Ancient Greece than in modern America, even if Mr Schlafly's perspective on US public schools & literacy is accurate. Has anyone found any information to the contrary? --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:34, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

::: Info on literacy in ancient Greece:
::: [http://www.historyliteracy.org/scripts/search_display.php?Article_ID=69 Book review of ''Literacy and Orality in Ancient Greece'' (suggests literacy as we understand it was confined to "a very small elite")]
::: [http://people.uncw.edu/deagona/ancientnovel/leslie.htm An article on ''Literacy and the Ancient Novel'' (suggests "advanced literacy" of 5%)]
::: Doesn't sound comparable to the modern USA! [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 10:54, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

:::: FredFerguson, have you ever considered that some sources aren't trustworth and that some things (like literacy in Ancient Greece) can't be measured? It's all very well citing a book or article, but then you have to consider where the book writer or article writer got the information from - and in an unfortunately large number of cases it comes from the top of his head. How do they know what literacy levels were in Ancient Greece? As a Greek lay dying, did he say to his son "Now if you remember one thing, remember this, and pass it on to your children....the current literacy rate is 5%. Pass it on to antiquity!"? I doubt it. It is quite likely that the figures quoted in those articles are just plain lies, or taken from other sources which have lied. Just because you read it somewhere doesn't mean it's true. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 12:50, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::::I don't think that truth is one of his priorities. [[User:RaviS|RaviS]] 12:54, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::::::Maybe, but it's undeniable that nowadays 'Professor' has become a deceptive title; people are too inclined to trust them and what they say based purely on their title, when in fact they should be subject to greater scrutiny. Too many people see a book or article by a 'Professor' and immediately believe it must be completely true. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 12:59, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::::::::::::Well, RaviS, who's being ''ad hominem'' now?! And ETrundel, simply because something can't be measured directly doesn't mean it can't be estimated. And the fact that one estimate has been made doesn't mean that that estimate can't be improved. But in general, people who've studied a subject seriously generally have a better idea of the actual facts than people who just dismiss out of hand any factual information they find uncomfortable.
::::::Can we move this discussion forward? Does anyone else have some '''information''' to contribute about any of the topics I've raised on this page? [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 13:10, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
Is it even sensible to talk about the literacy rate in Ancient Greece as a whole? I believe that (for example) Athens and Sparta had very different societies, so could be expected to have different levels of literacy.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 13:13, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:CPalmer makes a very good point. And to FredFerguson, people are trying to contribute, but you keep arguing and trying to stop them. Also, do you really believe that so-called "Professors" are totally and utterly unfallible? Have you really been brainwashed into thinking that they are totally devoted to the truth and don't have their own agendas to push? Because believe me, many of them do. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 13:17, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::So books written by academics who are experts in the field don't count as trustworthy anymore? Compilations of population statistics written by a branch of the government aren't somewhat reliable either? Then what sources should we use? WND? Whatever we decide is the truth? And don't give me any of that "open your mind" rubbish - we need adequate sources or we're just making it up.
So can we accept that millions of Americans are illiterate, the literacy rate is 99%, and the literacy rate in Athens was high within a small elite, very low elsewhere? These seem to have been established in the discussion and I don't understand why there's dissent (certainly no contradictory sources have been provided.)[[User:JHanson|JHanson]] 13:18, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::Mr Ferguson's claim above that only men could read may be a good starting point. If we can find a reliable source to verify this, then we can say confidently that the literacy rate couldn't have been more than 50%.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 13:19, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::::Given that one of the most famous ancient poets, Sappho, was a woman, Mr F may need to think again! [[User:RaviS|RaviS]] 13:23, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::::Excellent point! Now we seem to be getting somewhere.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 13:25, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::::On the other hand, reliable historical records place the number of Ancient Greek female poets as being minute, one of the reasons Sappho is famous is because she was a female poet at a time when poets were almost exclusively male. An example can be drawn with medieval Europe where, outside of the nobility, literacy was confined almost exclusively to men such as priests and the wealther merchants, but on rare occasion some women were taught literacy skills.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 13:33, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::::::The reliable source you want is ''Literacy and Orality in Ancient Greece'', cited above. Note that most poetry in the ancient world was oral, e.g. the epic poems ascribed to Homer may have been recited by bards for 500 years before they were eventually written down c.700BC. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 13:37, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::::::I'm not going to respond to the renewed jibes from RaviS and ETrundel. Let's talk about the facts. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 13:37, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::::::...he said, masterfully sidestepping their legitimate objections. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 13:46, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::::::::Mr. Ferguson has actually provided citations for his arguments. It is reasonable to dispute the accuracy of his citations, but it needs to be something more than "oh, a professor wrote those; people put far too much faith in that title." In other words, provide citations of your own, not hand-waving dismissal. [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 14:05, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

It appears to me that there really isn't a consistent answer to the question of the ancient Greeks. Spartan boys were taught to read and write, but they didn't really care for the skills so functionally they may have been illiterate still. The Athenians could definitely read - provided you happened to be male and somewhat well off. Literacy in the US is well higher because reading is a necessary function of socialization within our time. The ancient Greeks loved the arts, but they were more loved for their aesthetics than their functional qualities.

What is contestable about our high literacy rate? Millions still can't read, but that's because our population happens to be rather large. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 14:16, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:True enough. Instead of comparing actual literacy rates it might be more appropriate to compare how much access/opportunity people have or have had to learning literacy skills.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 14:52, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

TO SUM UP THUS FAR: So, the original mystery was ''How did the level of literacy in Ancient Greece compare with the United States now? '' So far, considering all the evidence offered above, the answer would be something like "While not all American adults are functionally literate, literacy in the US is much more widespread than that of Ancient Greece, and includes a broader range of the population. More people in the US have access to education than did in Ancient Greece; this is particularly true of women and the lower classes." References: [https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2103.html The CIA World Factbook], [http://nces.ed.gov/pubs93/93275.pdf this report on literacy in the US], [http://www.historyliteracy.org/scripts/search_display.php?Article_ID=69 Book review of ''Literacy and Orality in Ancient Greece''], [http://people.uncw.edu/deagona/ancientnovel/leslie.htm An article on ''Literacy and the Ancient Novel'']. Does anyone have any other sources that might be significant? Is there an appropriate way to include this in the article? I'm not sure what the etiquette is about editing "mystery" pages. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 15:08, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

[http://www.detlitcoal.org/faq.htm 47% of people in metro Detroit are functionally illiterate]. I doubt the rate of illiteracy was much higher in Athens in ancient Greece.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:11, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
: It sounds as though the rate of functional literacy in ancient Greece was a very low percentage, 5% at most. The rate of literacy in Detroit doesn't sound great but (1) it's still a lot higher than ancient Greece, which was the original - if rather arcane - question and (2) how representative is Detroit of the USA as a whole? [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 15:16, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

:: Your 5% figure is not credible. Socrates had a big following, and all of them could read and write. As someone pointed out, Spartans (not known to be as educated and Athenians) were taught to read and write. Moreover, democracy of Athens would not have originated without widespread literacy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:21, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::So how did American democracy originate if the US was (and is) plagued by illiteracy? Also, Socrates had a following amongst the other elites. As was said, literacy was high amongst the elites, low everywhere else.[[User:JHanson|JHanson]] 15:30, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::I suggest you take up the argument about the 5% figure with the authors of the books I've cited. They're the experts on the subject, not me.
:::Athenian voting: only adult men who'd completed military training were eligible to vote - no women, slaves or people of foreign origin. In any case, Athenians gathered to hear arguments orally, not to read newspapers. The same applied in the early democracies in the Viking domains, e.g. Iceland and the Isle of Man; there's no evidence there that any but a tiny proportion of the people there (mainly priests) could read.
:::I agree with JHanson's point about Socrates; yes, he had a following, but it was made up of aristocratic men who had women, slaves and foreigners to do their work for them. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 15:38, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

: <edit conflict> Looking at the Detroit data: Remember that when they refer to "functioning at the lowest literacy level", they do not necessarily mean completely unable to read. The NALS report explains the definitions of literacy level they used in their survey. They group people into four different levels. Those in the lowest level include people who can do basic tasks like identifying a specific piece of information in a news article; those people have basic reading skills. 66% to 75% of the people in this lowest level described themselves as being able to read or write English "well" or "very well". It's important also to look at who is in this lowest group. It includes immigrants, for whom English may not be their native language (25%), people with physical, mental, or health conditions that affect literacy (26%), people age 65 and older who may not have had the educational opportunities offered to today's students (one-third), and those with visual difficulties that affect their ability to read print (19%). So the whole question of literacy is much more complex than simply "can this person read or not", and the 99% number cited in some sources is measuring something quite different than the "functional literacy" rate referred to by the Detroit Literacy Coalition. (Note also that the NALS survey included some mathematics in their definition of literacy.) I am not surprised that a depressed inner city like Detroit includes a large number of people who struggle with literacy. However, we obviously cannot conclude that the Detroit rate is in any way similar to an overall US rate. As an example, the Detroit Literacy Coalition puts the functional illiteracy rate in Michigan at only 18%. This of course implies that there are areas of Michigan where the rate of illiteracy is significantly lower than 18% - perhaps wealthier, suburban areas. 
:As to Ancient Greece - while Socrates may have had a big following, they would have been men who were wealthy enough to have time for philosophy. Women, slaves, and the lower classes would not have been part of his followers. Remember also that in the democracy of Athens, only men who owned land were eligible to vote - again, women, slaves, and the lower classes were not included. I do not know anything about the number of people in each of these groups, except that it is reasonable to assume that women were around 50% of the population. Even if we assume the US's rate of functional literacy is 72% (based on Michigan's), it seems unlikely that Ancient Greece would come anywhere near this, given that most women, slaves, and the lower classes do not seem to have been, generally speaking, functionally literate. Leaving out the women alone gives a literacy rate of 50% - removing the slaves and the lower classes would bring it even lower. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 16:00, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::Good points there. The book review of ''Literacy and Orality'' makes it clear that most of those in ancient Greece who could read or write at all did so rarely and at a rudimentary level. I just don't see that the modern USA is comparable in any way. The much more important questions are, is literacy in the USA now as high as it should be (probably not) and how can it be raised?
::But on the specific subject of Athenian democracy, (1) I don't think men had to be land-owners in order to vote, e.g. merchants, craftsmen, etc, were eligible and (2) it's been estimated that as few as 1% of the residents of Athens had voting rights (if I can find a reference, I'll add it). [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 16:20, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::''I don't think men had to be land-owners in order to vote...'' It's quite possible that I'm wrong on that one. My kids and I have been reading a bit about Ancient Greece for our history studies, but we've been looking mostly at non-fiction books for kids, and I'm guessing some are more accurate than others. I'm far from an expert on history.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 16:32, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::::Hsmom, the WP page on Athenian democracy seems informative. Solon originally set a property qualification for voting but by the time of the "Golden Age" (Pericles to Aristotle, roughly), that had fallen into disuse. In peace-time, as much as 10% of the population may have been adult male Athenians who had completed military service, but that fell dramatically when Athens was at war, as it so often was (I think the 1% figure that I recalled had something to do with the time of the Peloponnesian[*] War). [* I bet I haven't spelt that right!] [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 16:39, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::::::What does "widespread mean" in this context? I seem to remember that Athens some time during he 5th century had a population of about quarter of a million. Only about a sixth of that were fully paid up citizens. (BTW, citizenship was a bit more complicated than owning land - in act it was somewhat the other way around - only citizens were allowed to own land.) The rest were children, women, slaves, helots, criminals, etc. So, if ''every citizen could read and write'' there would be a literacy figure of less than 20%. (I would imagine some literacy amongst the helots.) But let's get down to the nitty-gritty:
*Schools appeared in Athens during the 6th century.
*They taught the "Three Rs" plus Music and Physical Education from age 7.
*Teachers were generally low-paid, not particularly highly thought of members of society. They were paid by the parents.
*It was generally accepted that the average '''male''' citizen could read and write.
*Athens - at least into the 5th century - was still a generally "bookless" society - kids were taught their Homer to recite, not to write.
*There were no "institutions of higher learning" until the 4th century. For specialist learning (say medicine) an "expert" was engaged. (There were ''sophists'', itinerant teachers who went from city to city teaching certain specialist subjects and cost an arm and a leg.) A formal system of secondary education didn't appear until Hellenist times.
[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 16:49, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
==Update==
I updated the list to contain more mysteries and to reflect the sources and arguments here. Mysteries that were not really mysteries (such as whether the Hebrews were Egyptian slaves) have been removed, and the rise of Islam mystery has been changed to "Why did Islam fail to conquer the West" in response to Fred's answer and question. I am posting this comment under a new heading because it is far too much trouble to make little comments under each relevant section on this page. [[User:JWeatherman|JWeatherman]]

: Your additions are fine, but censorship is not. So I will look at what you removed and may restore them. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:05, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

== The Gunpowder Plot ==

I have just noticed the addition of the apparent mystery 'Was there really a genuine "Gunpowder Plot"?' The Gunpowder Plot of 1605 was very much real and there are huge amounts of evidence for it. Personally, I would add that before today I have never even heard of anyone who would claim that it didn't happen. The only major debates on the issue are not over whether it was real, but over certain details, such as suspected conspirators and what the outcome would have been had the plot not been foiled. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 22:15, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

: If this is the first you're hearing of the dispute, then I guess you don't read the Oxford Dictionary of World History! As explained in [[World History Lecture Nine]], that authority recognizes the dispute about the genuineness of the "plot".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:39, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

::I think this is due to a misinterpretation of the dictionary's entry on the matter. The most recent version states:

::"It has been suggested that Robert Cecil manufactured the plot, in order to discredit the Catholic cause"

::This is the only part of the entry that in anyway alludes to what you suggest, but when read in the context of the rest of the entry, and with a better understanding of Cecil himself, this is cleared up. The rest of the entry clearly outlines the plot itself and what did actually happen. The statement regarding Cecil is not saying he manufactured the plot as in 'he made it up', but is stating that some suspect him of organising the plot itself (although this is disputed by many). Even if Cecil did devise the plot to serve his own aims, and it wasn't simply a case of a 'Catholic conspiracy' then it does not change the fact that the plot was real, only that it's exact origins are unclear. There is little doubt that those directly involved in carrying out the plot were doing it for the generally accepted reasons of simply destroying Parliament and the king, in which case if Cecil was involved he was using them. The plot was very much genuine, and those who planted the powder had every intention of carrying it out. Whether or not the plot was instigated for the reasons stated by these men does not change this fact. The mystery is over the overall aims of the plot, in terms of who was the person who was really behind it. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 23:42, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

::: You attempt to draw a distinction without a difference. If Cecil manufactured the plot, a possibility acknowledged by the Oxford source, then there was never any chance of the plot being carried out. Even under your view, the participants would then have been manipulated and guided toward committing a crime. At a minimum, they would be entitled to a new trial to determine their actual guilt, and they would likely raise the recognized defense of entrapment.

::: Note that you don't acknowledge how the Oxford source has proven your first comments to be incorrect. Significant doubts have been raised and published about the truth of the story as it is recounted and celebrated.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:10, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

::::Actually, the same people who suggest that Cecil manufactured the plot, and this is the minority opinion, suggest that whether the plot succeeded or failed then his aims would have been met. The very discovery of a plot, either failed or successful would have given rise to greater suppression of Catholics in the country as was his suspected aim. There is also a suggestion that Cecil wanted James' heir, who before his death in 1612, was Prince Henry, to be crowned, as this would also have helped his suspected aims. The implication is that even if Cecil was responsible then he may well have let the plot succeed or fail, and even then as the Oxford Dictionary implies, Cecil's direct involvement is not accepted by most historians in such a manner.

::::Besides, even if the plot was doomed to fail it does not change the existence of the plot itself. The PLOT existed, whether it was likely to be successful is a different matter. The motives and potential of the plot do not alter the fact that it did exist as a historical fact, and so I think the mystery is badly worded to suggest that this is not the case. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 11:45, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

::::: Robert, you learn about the defense of entrapment, as used successfully in the criminal defense of John DeLorean a few decades ago. "Manufactured" plots are not the same as real ones. Cecil may have misled and exploited some useful idiots who never would have done something like that on their own.

::::: Maybe you think John DeLorean should have been found guilty in his trial, but the jurors felt otherwise. He was entrapped to fabricate a crime that never would have happened otherwise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:48, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

Batman

2009-04-29T15:18:55Z

NicholasT: Added some more info on lore and death of batman

[[Image:ARoss Batman.png|right|300px|thumb|''Batman'', by Alex Ross]]
'''Batman''' is a fictional [[superhero]] first appearing in ''Detective Comics'' in May, 1939. The creation of artist Bob Kane and writer Bill Finger, Batman remains one of the most famous and recognizable of the superhero genre, resulting in the creation of several television series, motion pictures, and graphic novels. The original comics are highly-prized by collectors and routinely fetch hundreds of thousands of dollars on the auction block.

==Comics lore==
The man who was to become Batman is Bruce Wayne, a Gotham City billionaire who inherited his wealth from his father, a prominent doctor and philanthropist named Thomas Wayne. A trip to the movies with the family ended in tragedy: Thomas and his wife Martha are murdered by a common thug in front of Bruce, whose childhood effectively ends at the age of eight. Growing up in the care of his father's butler, Alfred Pennyworth, he inherits a vast fortune, his father's business and philanthropic empire. Wayne's anger at his parent's murder causes him to vow revenge against the criminal element in all of it's forms. Wayne uses his wealth to travel the world during his teenage years, seeking out instruction from experts in various fields including martial arts, chemistry, psychology, forensics, meditation and engineering among other things. He returns to his home of Gotham city and is nearly killed as he attempts to stop a robbery.

While recovering in his study at Wayne Manor, Bruce Wayne's brooding is disturbed by a bat as it crashes through the window of his room. The bat inspires Wayne to create an alter ego for himself, one that will create fear and panic in those he targets, he decides to become the Batman. Wayne fashions himself a costume and arms himself with a small arsenal of bat related weapons and gear, specifically shunning guns. The refusal of Wayne to use guns stems not only from his professed belief that they are tools of the weak and cowardly, but also from a psychological block against them due to the one used in his parents murder. In the last issue of the DC series Final Crises, Batman overcomes his fear of guns and uses a special bullet to mortally wound the villain Darkseid. Batman is seemingly killed by Darkseid in the process and as of yet his fate is unknown.

Batman is unusual for superheroes in that he has no superhuman powers, though he is certainly an unusually gifted human being: an athlete who would "win or place" in any Olympic event, master of a dizzying array of martial arts forms, genius detective and capable scientist, and a billionaire to top it off. Despite this, he uses his brains, training, and resources to not only keep up but excel in comparison with many heroes with great superpowers, a testament to man's will in the face of adversity.

==Film and television==
The first dramatic appearance of Batman appeared as a reoccurring guest star on the "Superman" radio series. Interestingly, during the initial story line, Batman and Robin didn't interact Superman, but Clark Kent. Batman's young side-kick, "Robin", was created specifically as an exposition device, desperately needed in radio. Although a pilot episode was recorded, Batman never received his own radio series.

The first film dealing with the Caped Crusader was a 1943 12-chapter serial from Columbia Pictures starring Lewis Wilson and Douglas Croft as Batman and Robin. The plot of the film centered on a nefarious, stereotypical Asian scientist, Dr. Daka (J. Carrol Naish), who has a plan to steal valuable resources from the United States in order to support the Axis during the World War II. Although low-budget, ''Batman'' introduced the concept of the Batcave (called the "Bat's Cave" in the film) and the hidden entry to it, as well as altering the appearance of Alfred from a portly servant to a leaner, robust individual. ''Batman and Robin'' would follow it in 1949, also as a serial, starring Robert Lowery and Johnny Duncan (Muir, 9; 72)

In January 1966, ABC released a "Batman" television series starring Adam West. During the series pre-production, there was a heated debate over which direction the Caped Crusader should be taken. Eventually, Producer William Dozier's vision won out - "Batman" would be a high budgeted, camp series which ridiculed the character. This portrayal of the character, while it was in line with the comics of the time, came in later years to be reviled by fans, particularly during the '80s and '90s. During the summer of 1966, Dozier unleased a "Batman" feature film, also starring Adam West.

Although the series caught on quickly, it fell just as suddenly. During the series' third season, Yvonne Craig was hired to protray "Batgirl" - a young woman who wore a tight purple leather outfit. This did nothing to slow the ratings plunge. The last few episode of "Batman" were literally among the lowest rated television series of the 60s.

For decades after, the "Batman" television series defined the filmed comic book template, which can be seen feature films such as "Doc Savage" and the television productions of "The Justice League" and "The Spirit". The template was broken in 1978 with the success of 1978's "The Incredible Hulk" starring Bill Bixby. Later comic based characters would take on a more serious role, including Batman himself.

''Batman'' film took a darker turn in 1989, when the Tim Burton-directed film, starring Michael Keaton, portrayed Bruce Wayne as a reclusive, quirky billionaire who probably was not entirely sane. While at first wary of an actor known primarily for comedies playing Batman, some fans ended up going to other movies before its release just to see the trailer for the Batman film, and then walked out, not even watching the movie they paid for. The film was a success, and was widely-lauded for Jack Nicholson's portrayal of Batman's nemesis, the Joker. It was followed up with 1992's ''Batman Returns'', which, while not as well-reviewed or successful, was still accepted by the fans, and brought the iconic figures of Catwoman and the Penguin into the movie universe.

The tone of the new movies influenced the critically-acclaimed ''Batman: The Animated Series'', a cartoon shown at first in prime time. Some of its takes on certain villains, such as Mr. Freeze, became iconic, and it introduced several characters that eventually "immigrated" to the comics, such as Detective Renee Montoya, and the Joker's hench-girlfriend, Harley Quinn.

Tim Burton was replaced with Joel Schumacher for the third Batman movie in the new movie canon, ''Batman Forever'' (1995), which introduced Robin (Batman's iconic sidekick), and the villians the Riddler and Two-Face. Whereas Burton had tried for a more dark and Gothic look, Schumacher went with bright neon colors and brought back some of the camp of the '60s TV series. The movie did well at the box office, but received mixed reviews. The fourth and final film of this "universe" was ''Batman and Robin'', released in 1997. Widely regarded as the worst of the series by fan and critic alike, ''Batman and Robin'' returned fully to the campy tone of the TV series, featuring "candy-coated" sets, poor special effects, weirder science than normal from Bat-Media, character derailment, and Arnold Schwarzennegger, as the lead villain Mr. Freeze, with barely 100 lines of dialogue, over half of which centered around cold-themed puns. This film was reviled for years as having "killed" the franchise, and performed relatively poorly in ticket sales.

The film series was rebooted again in 2005, with ''Batman Begins'', a grittier, more "realistic" take on Batman. In this film, director Christopher Nolan took Bruce Wayne, played by Christian Bale, halfway around the world in search of the answer to the riddle of criminality. He learns to fight multiple opponents, conceal himself, and gains the will to act in defense of others. Returning to Gotham after being declared legally dead, he deftly maneuvers himself back into the control of his murdered father's company and resolves to terrify the criminal element by making himself seem inhuman...and chooses the mantle of a bat, because bats scare ''him''.

The most recent entry in the series, ''The Dark Knight'', has thus far exceeded all expectations. Almost universally lauded by critics and shattering numerous box-office records, the film featured the final performance of [[Heath Ledger]], who died from a drug overdose after filming, as a monstrous version of the Joker, a psychotic who thinks the only sane way to live is without rules and wants to prove it to the world. Though the tone at the start of the film is hopeful--Batman has inspired citizens to stand up for themselves again and has organized crime in the city reeling--it quickly spirals downward, embodying the theme that Nolan chose for the movie: things have to get worse before they get better.

==References==
*Kane, Bob (with Tom Andrae). ''Batman & Me'', Eclipse Books, Forestville, California (1989).
*Goulart, Ron. ''Comic Book Encyclopedia'', Harper Entertainment, New York (2004).
*Muir, John Kenneth. ''The Encyclopedia of Superheroes on Film and Television'', McFarland & Company, Jefferson, North Carolina (2004)

[[Category:Entertainment]]
[[Category:Superheroes]]
[[Category:Comic Characters]]

Adalius Thomas

2009-04-27T15:59:04Z

NicholasT: fixed spelling

'''Adalius Donquail Thomas''' is a [[National Football League]] linebacker for the [[New England Patriots]]. He was born on August 18, 1977 in Nixburg, [[Alabama]]. Thomas is well known for his chartable work in the community work<ref>http://www.patriots.com/team/index.cfm?ac=playerbio&bio=30839</ref> including starting a chess competition for kids in inner city [[Baltimore]] and working with [[Habitat for Humanity]]. In 2001 he was an intern for a [[Illinois]] congressman in [[Washington D.C.]]<ref>http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/peter_king/03/04/thomas/index.html</ref>

== College Football ==
While attended the [[University of Southern Mississippi]] from 1996-1999, Thomas was a football star for Golden Eagles (the University of Southern Mississippi football team). He was twice named the Conference USA Defensive Player of the Year and is the [[University of Southern Mississippi]] all time leader in sacks with 34.5<ref>http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/peter_king/03/04/thomas/index.html</ref>

== NFL Career ==
In 2000, Thomas was picked in the sixth round of the [[2000 NFL Draft]] by the [[Baltimore Ravens]]. In his rookie (2000) season he just played in three games and made one special teams tackle. The following year, 2001, Thomas became more of a contributer to the Ravens defense as he played in 16 games and made a total of 37 tackles and 3.5 sacks while also becoming a valuable special teams player. In 2002, Thomas, starting twelve games at defensive end (he played in all sixteen games) basically repeated his 2002 production with the exception of adding a new static for him, interception, of which he had two in 2002. In 2003, he missed some playing time due to injury's, but he still managed to set a have a productive year both as a defensive player (43 tackles, 4 sacks) and was named the AFC's Pro Bowl Special Teams Player. Thomas set a new record for himself in 2004 as he started in all sixteen of the Ravens regular season games. As a key part of one of the NFL's top defenses, he made 72 tackes, eight sacks, four forced fumbles and one interception. His eight sacks were second best total on the team for 2004. In 2005, he once again started all sixteen of the Ravans games and made 84 total tackles, nine sacks and two interceptions including one that he returned 20 yards for a touchdown in the Ravens 16-15 week thirteen victory over the [[Houston Texans]]. In 2006, Thomas started all sixteen games and for the first time in his career was named to the AFC Pro Bowl Team as a outside linebacker. He made 11 sacks in 2006, the second best total on the Ravens defense that was ranked number one on the entire National Football League. At the Pro Bowl game he returned a fumble 70 yards for a touchdown in a 31-28 AFC victory over the NFC.

After the 2006 season Thomas became a free agent. A day after free agency began he signed<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/04/AR2007030400297.html</ref> with the [[New England Patriots]] to a five year, 35.04 million dollar deal<ref>http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/peter_king/03/04/thomas/index.html</ref>. He is expected to start at linebacker for the Patriots<ref>http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=pasquarelli_len&id=2900954</ref>.

== Quotes ==

* Be humble or get humble<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/04/AR2007030400297.html</ref>

== References ==
<references/>

== External Links ==

*[http://www.nfl.com/players/adaliusthomas/profile?id=THO013777 NFL Stats]
*[http://www.patriots.com/team/index.cfm?ac=playerbio&bio=30839 Patriots Bio]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Thomas, Adalius}}
[[Category:New England Patriot Players]]

Talk:World History Lecture Eleven

2009-04-24T14:49:19Z

NicholasT: /* Regarding Trotsky */

I noticed this spelling, Guomindang; can we make redirects like Kuomintang, or such, or how do you wish to handle things like this? Thanks. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:48, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Who's Andy Schlafly? How about some bibliographic info? [[User:Testing|Testing]] 15:40, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
:He made the site...--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 15:44, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

''Stalin established a brutal totalitarian state, whereby he dictated all aspects of life and used violence to destroy any opponents. A secret police aided Stalin in his vicious execution of all opponents.''

And none of this happened under kindly Uncle Lenin? [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 10:29, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

Why does it not mention that Warren G. Harding was one of the most corrupt presidents ever? And that he is regularly ranked among the worst presidents by most historians?

: Do you think Harding was almost as corrupt as recent Democratic Administrations???--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:38, 1 April 2009 (EDT)

::Almost as corrupt? try far more corrupt. He had multiple affairs before and during is time in office. he paid one of his mistresses $50,000 not to reveal the affair. his administration was a den of nepotism. he appointed personal friends to important positions such as head of the veterans bureau. His nepotistically appointed friend Charles Forbes, head of the veterans bureau, stole $200 million from the federal government, and his attorney general Daugherty was found to have profited from illegal shipments of alcohol. so yes, i'd say his corruption and that of his administration FAR exceeded that of any recent democratic administration!!!!{{unsigned|JBryant}}

::Well????

::: Are you sure you aren't trying to describe some of the problems in the Clinton Administration???--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:59, 13 April 2009 (EDT)

::::Are you sure you're not trying to dodge the question???????????????????????????
listen, I"m no fan of Clinton or the democrats. I think that all presidents, liberal AND conservative need to be held accountable for their actions. I think that it is revisionist to not include Harding's shortcomings. I know that if he had been liberal, you'd be all over his affairs and other such corruption. I'm just asking that you be fair and balanced in terms of talking about corruption. is that too much to ask? [[User:JBryant|JBryant]] 11:13, 15 April 2009 (EDT)

: No, you're wrong in suggesting that a quality world history course would waste time on [[gossip]] about Harding if he had been liberal. This is a quality history course. Read the National Enquirer if you have a need for gossip.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:50, 15 April 2009 (EDT)

== Theory of Relativity ==

This section is full of strange mistakes. Are we permitted to edit the lectures here so that the students get accurate science instruction? For example, the Theory or Relativity does not care whether the speed of light changed over time. It probably has not changed, but the theory has no preference either way. Also, why does the author state that the Theory of Relativity has nothing to do with the atom bomb or any other technology? This statement lacks any point or precision. It' not true that the theory of relativity has nothing to do with technologies we use today. Also the Theory of Relativity does not reject "Newton's Theory." It merely modifies certain Newtonian kinematics, as for very high velocities. Also, the Theory of Relativity has nothing to do with moral relativism. Why does the author keep saying it does? It is a scientific theory, not a theory of morality. I am interested in assisting with this project if it is open for participation! [[User:ShmuelB|ShmuelB]] 12:24, 16 April 2009 (EDT)

: The truth is welcome. Falsehoods, even popular ones, are not. Your comments are historically or factually incorrect, unfortunately.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:17, 16 April 2009 (EDT)

== Postulates of Special Relativity ==

I clarified one postulate, i.e., ''The speed of light is the same for all observers, no matter what their relative speeds.'' That seems to be an improvement over ''the speed of light never changes''...

This section - especially in its disparagement of Einstein's work - is something you don't find in any common textbook on the history of sciences. Therefore, I'd wish that A. Schlafly would include some sources to bolster his claims.

Unfortunately, such a (in my eyes, mainly unjustified) critique of the importance of the theories of relativity invokes memories of the ''German Physics''.

[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 09:30, 17 April 2009 (EDT)

:It is '''inappropriate''' to compare scientific skepticism about materialist science to Naziism.
:If you find me ten articles that accept the theory of relativity and use it to make historical claims, I can show you ten articles that accept that the speed of light is constant. Do you think that is some sort of coincidence?
:I do not think it is a coincidence. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 16:03, 17 April 2009 (EDT)

:: I don't find any substance in either of the above comments. If you have a specific factual improvement to the article, then let's see it. Otherwise, let's move on.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:00, 17 April 2009 (EDT)

@Aschlafly: My ''specific factual improvement'' of the article is a change of your wording (''the speed of light never changes'') of one of Einstein's postulate of the theory of relativity.
Here a some versions which I looked up over the last days:
*'''Wolfgang Pauli''' ''Theory of Relativity'', 1958, p. 5: ''The velocity of light is independent of the motion of the light source''

*'''Robert Resnick''', '''David Halliday''' ''Fundamentals of Physics'', 7th ed. 1996, p. 1254: ''The speed of light in vacuum has the same value in all inertial frames, regardless of the velocity of the observer or the velocity of the source emitting the light''

and from a source you seem to trust:

*'''[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/relativity Merriam-Webster]''' ''the speed of light in a vacuum is constant and independent of the source or observer''
None of these - and many others - implies that the ''speed of light never changes''. They stress the point that the speed of light is independent of the motion of the source or the observer - and I think that's the rather baffling, exciting part for everyone who is confronted with this postulates for the first time.

None of those states that ''the speed of light never changes'', but they emphasize the mind-baffling (at least for everyone who is confronted with this theory for the first time) fact that the velocity of light is ''independent of the motion of the light source''.

The phrase ''the speed of light never changes'' is at least unfortunate as it implies that the speed of light has never changed since the begin of the universe. But the postulates doesn't require this, the same theory would hold with a speed of light of 300 km/h instead of 300,000 km/s...

@BHarlan: ''If you find me ten articles that accept the theory of relativity and use it to make historical claims, I can show you ten articles that accept that the speed of light is constant.'' I honestly don't know what you want say here...

That said, I hope you'll approve that I change the lecture to the version of Wolfgang Pauli.

[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 14:07, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

:Pauli did not use it, in the quote you supply, to make historical claims. I maintain my promise of ten for ten, and I caution you against attacking the conservative worldview by prevaricating on what "historical" means. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 15:21, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

::I stated above that I won't touch the ''historical'' aspects of the lecture, but only the ''scientific'' ones. So, I rectified or - if you prefer - improved a scientific statement. That has nothing to do with a certain ''Weltanschauung'', that's just a question whether a formulation is used in physics or not.
::I think that Aschlafly will accept a formulation which is similar to the one used at Conservapedia's article on the [[Theory of Relativity]].
::[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 15:55, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

::''addendum'' It isn't my lecture. But it isn't an essay, neither, and the page is not protected. Due to the very nature of these lectures, any change should be done after consideration. The quotes above should show that I tried to be painstakingly diligent. That said, I will change the lecture '''again''', and I like to ask you, BHarlan, for a source of the first version of the postulate - if you have the intention to undo my edit, that is... [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 16:02, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

Aschlafly, I've to admit that I'm not glad with the current version (''the speed of light can never be increased''). It's not a general accepted version of the postulates, and differs greatly from the examples I gave above. I don't know why it seems to be necessary to find a new, somehow unique formulation of these century-old postulates. One doesn't take much liberty with the phrasing of ''Newton's axioms'', and one shouldn't with ''Einstein's postulates'', neither.
But as you obviously want to show some creativity, I won't argue any longer.
[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 08:01, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

: Clement, where did your accusation that "you obviously want to show some creativity" come from??? It's bizarre.

: I'm looking for the clearest explanation of the postulate. I don't think your version is any more historically accurate than mine, and yours is far more difficult for history students to understand. Good teaching is about .... clear teaching. It does not allow confusing students with contorted, confusing statements.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:56, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

:: Sorry, that wasn't meant as an accusation, that's just an observation: instead of using a formulation of Einstein's postulates which is to be found only with small alterations in most textbook on physics - and even in the Merriam-Webster, you prefer your own wording. That's creative.
:: [[Pauli exclusion principle|Pauli]]'s version in not only more ''historically'' accurate, it is more ''scientifically'' accurate. Of course, the whole concept is baffling. So it may be a little bit more difficult to understand - but you have bright students! And it can be understood correctly.
:: BTW, you will find scant scientists or educators who judge Pauli's statements as contorted or confusing.
:: [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 14:05, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

::: I wasn't offended by your "observation", but found it to be inexplicably bizarre. I articulated the postulate, then you replaced it with a far more complex and non-historical substitute, and then I simplified it into something clearer. Your response was a petulant accusation, without even addressing the substance my improvement. Are you saying the more concise, clearer formulation is wrong? I can't even tell what your view is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:42, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

:::: Until now, the history of the formulations of the postulate in the lecture reads like:
::::# the speed of light never changes (original by Aschlafly)
::::# the speed is the same for all observers (no matter what their relative speeds) (Clement B.)
::::# the speed of light never changes (reversion by BHarlan)
::::# the speed of light is independent of the motion of the light source (Pauli's version inserted by Clement B.)
::::# the speed can never be increased (second version of Aschlafly)

::::Your formulations are shorter, but neither more concise or clearer. Furthermore, I don't know how you can label W. Pauli's version as non-historical?
::::In his article ''Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Koerper'' - ''About the electrodynamics of moving bodies'' (Annalen der Physik, 1905, p 891), Einstein wrote
:::::'' 1. Die Gesetze, nach denen sich die Zustände der physikalischen Systeme ändern, sind unabhängig davon, auf welches von zwei relativ zueinander in gleichförmiger Translationsbewegung befindlichen Koordinatensystemen diese Zustandsänderungen bezogen werden.''

:::::''2. Jeder Lichtstrahl bewegt sich im ,,ruhenden“ Koordinatensystem mit der bestimmten Geschwindigkeit V , unabhängig davon, ob dieser Lichtstrahl von einem ruhenden oder bewegten Körper emittiert ist. ''

::::This would be the historic origin of the postulates. A translation:

:::::''1. The laws which describe the change of the properties of physical systems are independent of a steady translation of the coordinates in which this changes are described''

:::::''2. Any ray of light moves in «stationary» coordinates with a certain velocity V, regardless whether this ray was emitted from a stationary or moving body''

::::So, from the very beginning you find the same idea which Pauli describes concisely and clearly : '''the speed of light is independent of the motion of the light source'''

::::[[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 16:18, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

::::: This is an interesting and informative discussion. But Einstein said that the speed of light always moved with a "certain velocity." That is very similar to my first formulation. Pauli, who had nothing to do with the development of relativity, is saying something different. Under Pauli's formulation, the speed of light may vary. Not so under Einstein's.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:53, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

:::::: Einstein speaks of a ''certain velocity V'' - ''eine gewisse Geschwindigkeit V''. This is his way to introduce an abbreviation (''V'') - you'll find similar formulations in the work of his contemporaries. In his whole essay he doesn't touch the question whether this certain velocity V has changed over time.
:::::: The main point - as it is stressed in so many textbooks - is that the speed of light is independent of the movement of the source. Think about it: It's really mind-boggling as it contradicts our intuition! I haven't met a pupil who wasn't intrigued by this, especially if you explained the ''Gedankenexperimente'' ...
:::::: To be petulant for another time: Frankly, I don't think that you can produce a better formulation than that of W. Pauli.
:::::: [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 18:09, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

::::::: Clement, you're not responding to my points, and you've resorted again to a petulant mode. Do yourself a favor: open your mind and think more for yourself, rather than simply repeating what someone else said. Suit yourself, but I'm moving on to others. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:23, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

:::::::: And may I give you an advise, too? Sometimes it is good to listen to those great minds who actually had the ideas in the first place. Thinking for yourself is all fine and dandy, but sometimes, it seems to be the sensible thing not to ignore a century of textbooks.
:::::::: [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 18:41, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

::::::::: If your approach is to rely on authoritative, time-tested sources, Clement, then '''why haven't you been quoting the Bible during your many edits to this site'''? Instead, you seem very selective in which sources you quote, and as BHarlan pointed out first below, you don't even seem to interpret your own selective sources correctly.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:33, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

ClementB, doesn't "a certain velocity V" imply that Einstein is saying that the speed does not change during the scope of the problem?
For instance, if I say "If a certain man V is President for two full terms, V may not be elected to a third term" or "There is a certain function f such that if a car is traveling at a certain velocity V that is less than the escape velocity, then it will fall to Earth in less than time f(V)", then the variables are not changing over the scope of the problem, no? And since some problems take place over very long periods of time, the velocity is assumed not to change over that whole period, no? And doesn't that imply that the speed of light is constant, no matter how far your twin travels? [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 18:26, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

:::::::::: The Bible is my source of inspiration. I keep it out of my science or history classes, though.
:::::::::: Yes, I'm selective in my sources: on science, I quote scientists. I'm humble enough to know that I can't improve the insights of the greatest minds of the last century, but I am confident that I can understand what they were talking about. If you read the quotes above with an open mind, you'll find that your wording of the postulates is lacking: it covers at most half of the original of Einstein, and leaves out the baffling part. You scold me for respecting to much ''what someone else said''. May I quote Sir Isaak Newton: ''If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of giants.''
:::::::::: I think it is prideful to refuse to climb on these shoulders, and to remain willfully in the shadows of the giants.
:::::::::: And may I say that you offered no quote, neither Biblical nor scientific, for your version of the postulate? I got the impression that you thought it up by yourself. But which sources did you use?
:::::::::: BTW, BHarlan talks about a conclusion drawn from the postulates, not the postulates themselves.
:::::::::: [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 07:25, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

== Regarding Trotsky ==

While I was perusing the site last night I happened across the section eleven homework assignments and was curious as to which mottoes by John Smith and Trotsky were being referred to in one of the questions. I checked out the lecture and found the section in question and I believe there is a problem with context involved.

Whereas the Englishman Captain John Smith famously stated in the early days of the Jamestown settlement,
“He that will not work shall not eat, ”Trotsky’s famous motto was this: “Those who do not obey do not eat.”

For one, the John Smith quote seems to indicate that "He that will not work, shall not eat" is a phrase coined by John Smith. It might be good to give proper attribution to the Bible, which is where the thought originated.

Also, regarding the Trotsky quote: ''Trotsky’s famous motto was this: “Those who do not obey do not eat.”'' This indicates heavily that Trotsky advocated such a thought process and that this sentiment was inherent to the birth of communism. This is false. While communist dictators throughout the world have proven belief in this sentiment through atrocious acts of government, it was in no way Trotsky's belief or line of thinking nor was it expressed in the origins of communism as a political and economic theory. While claiming to espouse a saying more akin to "He that will not work, shall not eat", it was in fact '''Stalin''' who most embodied the phrase “Those who do not obey do not eat.”

Now I am certainly not going to make an argument for communism here, it is simply not a functional system of government, I will say that Trotsky as a historical figure has been improperly quoted via lack of significant context. Trotsky voraciously opposed the totalitarian government of Stalin which was the reason for his exile and assassination. “Those who do not obey do not eat.” was Trotsky's response to the 1936 constitution of the U.S.S.R. including the phrase :

In the U.S.S.R. work is a duty and a matter of honor for every able-bodied citizen, in accordance with the principle: "He who does not work, neither
shall he eat."

“Those who do not obey do not eat.” was Trotsky's condemnation of Stalin's methods and was what Trotsky believed to be Stalin's true "motto".

On a lighter note: It may be interesting to your students that after Trotsky's assassin buried a pick-axe in his skull, The sixty year old man remained conscious and actually fought his attacker with an axe sticking out of his head. Trotsky didn't die until the next day. I've always found that interesting. --[[User:NicholasT|NicholasT]] 08:25, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

: Interesting comments. Thanks. But Trotsky was a communist, just not a supporter of Stalin. Did Trotsky believe his motto? I would think so. Also, I'm not sure from where in the Bible you think John Smith's motto came. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:47, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

::NicholasT explained how this wasn't Trotsky's motto, but the motto of Stalin as seen by Trotsky. He made it clear that Trotsky didn't endorse this motto
::In lecture 12, you state that Orwell fought in Spain ''against both the communists and Franco’s fascists''. But Orwell was member of a Trotskystic group. So, Orwell ''was'' a communist, wasn't he? [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 09:10, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

:: Regarding the bible verse: ''"He that will not work shall not eat"'' can be found in Paul's second letter to the Thessalonians [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Thess%203:10;&version=31;2 Thessalonians 3:10]

::As for Trotsky: I may have not expressed myself well enough. ''"Those who do not obey do not eat"'' was no one's famous motto. The official motto of the Soviet Union under Stalin was ''"He who does not work, neither should he eat"''. Trotsky wrote a book in 1937 entitled "The Revolution Betrayed" in which he condemns Stalin's use of brutality within the state as an oppressive regime. In it he cites specifically Stalin's act of advising local organs to not give work to anyone sympathetic with Trotsky. Trotsky goes on to state that the lack of employment options led to followers of his philosophy lacking money, and in turn food, and leading to starvation. Trotsky says the the old motto of "who does not work shall not eat" had been replaced by Stalin with ''"Those who do not obey do not eat."''.

::My main point is this: ''"Those who do not obey do not eat."'' was not Trotsky's motto or Stalin's motto. It is a statement from a book Trotsky wrote just before his death. Trotsky claimed it to be Stalin's new motto as a point of rhetoric in an argument against Stalin's brutal methods, specifically against the Bolsheviks and supporters of Trotsky. ''"Those who do not obey do not eat."'' might be what happens when a communist dictator is in command, but as far as Trotsky is concerned it was a specific reference to Stalin's starving out of his followers and Trotsky believed it to be the wrong way to run a government. --[[User:NicholasT|NicholasT]] 10:49, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

Debate: Are Catholics Christians?

2009-04-24T12:42:58Z

NicholasT: /* Turning the tables: What does the Catholic Church think of Pentecostals? */

== YES ==

Absolutely. A Christian is someone who follows the teachings of Jesus Christ in a way that benefits their own personal spirituality. If a Catholic does this, he or she is most certainly a Christian. If he does not, however, then he is not. There are Catholics who are Catholics in name only, just as there are many Fundamentalists who most certainly do not behave in a Christ-like manner. Nevertheless, religion is a personal matter, not one for others to judge. --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 23:18, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

No, Christian is not someone who "follows the teachings of Jesus Christ in way that benefits their own personal spirituality". Just because you follow Christ's teachings doesn't make you Christian. An Atheist could follow the example of Christ because he feels Jesus was moral person, yet deny Christ ever rose from the dead. Is that person a Christian? No. To be a Christian, then you must believe various things. (That Jesus rose from the dead physically, that salvation is by grace through faith alone, etc.) If you don't follow those things, then you're not a Christian. It's not about "behaving" in any particular way. Your own works don't save you. Jesus does. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 00:32, 22 June 2008 (EDT)

Christ paid for sins so that we might strive to avoid sin, but realize that forgiveness is always possible if we truly seek it. You seem to make it sound as if we can sin and still be saved even if we don't truly repent, so long as we believe that Christ died for us. Do you believe that this is the case? --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 00:45, 22 June 2008 (EDT)

First, sorry my response took so long. “Christ paid for our sins that we might strive to avoid sin”. No, that’s not how it works. Christ’s death does not open up a window of opportunity, that if we stop sinning, we’ll be saved. That’s not how it works. We’re saved by grace alone. Not by grace and works; just grace. Christ’s death takes away all our sins. All of them, including the ones we haven’t committed yet. Ephesians 2:8-9 says, “For by grace you have been saved by faith, and that not of yourselves, it is a gift of God. Not of works, lest any man should boast.” We see here that it’s not based on our own good merits or our own ability to stop sinning. Salvation comes entirely through Christ.

Yes, salvation is possible for anyone. But it only comes by the grace of Christ.

Repentance is a result of salvation not a cause of it. Repentance by definition is to be worry for what you’ve done and to turn away from it. So, you must feel sorry and turn away from sins to repent. But, as I said before, we’re not saved by our ability to turn away from sin or do god. It’s all about Christ. So, yes, as long as we believe that Christ (God in flesh) died on the cross for sins, was buried, and rose again from the dead, then we can be saved. Regardless of our works. Note, that doesn’t mean we should keep going bad things. The Bible says that we become new creation when we’re saved. So we should strive to do good. But that is because it comes from thankfulness to God for what He’s already done, not because we’re trying to earn our way to Heaven.

But, in theory, you do argue that it is possible for someone who sins repeatedly to be saved, while someone who is virtuous can be damned? --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 23:15, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

Well, I don't believe that anyone is "virtuous". It is my Biblical belief that all people are sinners and all are inherently evil. (Ephesians 2:3). And everyone is a sinner (Romans 3:23). But, in a human sense, yes, there are "good" people, which I assume is what you’re speaking of. I also assume that the multiple sinner is supposed to be someone who has done great dead of evil, like murder, while the virtuous person has done relatively less evil. So, if the person who sins all the time and murder, rapes, steals etc. puts his faith in Christ, then he will go to Heaven and be saved. If the virtuous man who doesn’t sin nearly as much doesn’t trust in Christ, then he will go to Hell. It because it’s only through Christ that one can be righteous. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 11:05, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Jesus's Apostles were the first to be called Christians by Antioch citizens. The Apostle Peter became the founder of the modern day Catholic Church with his successor being Pope Benedict. What Catholic really means is Universal. This became the Univeral Church for Gentiles and Jews. Christian denominations are just seperate branches of the same tree, Jesus. The main difference being the seperate denominations don't adhere to the successor of St. Peter. To believe in Jesus as Lord, that individual has a special Grace from God. To know and believe is called Christianity.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 00:01, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

: Absolutely. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 10:25, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

The only way to sensible classify religions is through factors such as their origins, demographics, characteristics, and self identifications. Theological debate over Catholic interpretation of the bible is completely irrelevant to whether they count as Christians.

I don't know a whole lot about catholic doctrine, but I think so. Obviously only God really knows. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 10:57, 3 December 2008 (EST)

As someone with a half dozen first cousins, all catholic, and two uncles, both devoutly catholic, and a devoutly catholic grandmother and grandfather who has attended several catholic funeral rites, marriages, and dozens of Catholic masses (I have never taken communion, just sit and respectfully watch), I think the honest answer--the horrifying truth--is being a Catholic does not in fact guarantee that one is a Christian. The majority of Catholics, I truly believe, are Christians, but ultimately a Christian relationship (a covenant) with God can only be known to the individual. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 11:16, 3 December 2008 (EST)

== NO ==

This is a ridiculous question. Catholics believe a number of things that are completely contra-Biblical, like prayer to Mary or the ability to work for salvation. Salvation is by faith in Christ alone, and anyone who believes otherwise is doomed to spend eternity with Satan. --[[User:JosephG|JosephG]] 23:21, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

Some individual Catholics might be saved, but it's in spite of the Catholic Church. The official church theology is un-Biblical and not Christian. Jesus paid for all sins on the cross and we are saved by grace through faith lone. We're not "infused with grace" and able to work our way to Heaven. It's entirely through Jesus. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 00:35, 22 June 2008 (EDT) [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 14:38, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

Agreeing with the previous two comments. Some Catholics are saved, but in spite of their church rather than because of it. They may have been truely Christian once, but they have burried Christ beneath a mountain of doctrine, dogma, papal rulings, procedure, ritual, saints, demons and angels so thick that He can no longer be seen through the thicket of false teachings. Even the existance of a Pope is completly unbiblical. - [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]

== MAYBE? ==

Yes because of their willingness to follow Jesus Christ.

No when they don't express God's love to all--saying God hates someone because they live a homosexual lifestyle... but that's mainly just the ultra-conservative Catholics. [[User:NathanG|Nate]] 23:30, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

:Personally, I think Christians are losing their ability to hate, and this is a bad thing. Hate, unpleasant as it is, can be a tool for good. Rightous hate drives people to fight evil, to oppose sin. Hate of sin is one of the things that gives Christians the will to try to end it. Without hate, there can only be tolerance or acceptance. - [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]

::Are you trying to be ironic!!??? That's excactly what Jesus wanted us to do! --[[User:Nabroon|Nabroon]] 10:07, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Nate, that is an excellent point. Incidentally, the official doctrine of the Catholic Church does not condemn homosexuality, but merely indicates that homosexuals are called to a life of celibacy. As a Progressive Catholic myself, I prefer to believe that a person's most powerful spiritual compass is his own conscience, and that doctrine is nothing more than a codification of established belief. --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 23:36, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

A willingness to follow Jesus doesn't save one. Our willingness to do good works or say a set number of prayers or go to church doesn't save us. Jesus does by His death nd resurrection. It's ll about Christian. And saying hmosexuality is wrong can be expressing God's love to people. God makes it clear from His word that He doesn't approve of homosexuality. Telling them it's wrong and warning them of the consequences can be very loving. It's like pushing someone off the trin tracks when the train is coming. They might not always like it, but it's for there own good. Christians can certainly be unloving in there presentation; we shouldn't insult people or call them names. But we do need to stand up for what's right.

Offical Catholic doctrine might not condem homosexuality; but the Bible does. It mke it clear that it's wrong. The most powerful moral compass a person has is the word of God. He tells us what's right and what's wrong. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 00:40, 22 June 2008 (EDT)

I know I've had a debate with you before over placing stock in Biblical authority, but on what grounds do you believe what you do about what the Bible really is? --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 00:48, 22 June 2008 (EDT)

Because the Bile is extremely reliable. There were 5600 New Testament manuscripts written within one hundred years of the original copies. That far exceeds anything that you would find in the ancient world. The New Testament is the most reliable document that we have from ancient times. In fact, the New Testament that we have today has been estimated to be 99.5% accurate compared to the original. And most of those difference are simple grammar errors. (Spelling errors, etc.) So I have extreme confidence in the Bible. Besides, we learn about Christ in the Bible. There is no where else to go. So believe contrary things about Jesus would be based on assumption, not our historical evidence. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 14:47, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

I trust that copyists have been quite careful in their reproductions of the Bible, but the presence of spelling errors or grammar errors has nothing to do with whether or not we ought to place trust in the Bible as an historical source. I agree that historical evidence does support many claims made about the life of Christ, but this does not mean that it is exempt from the problems faced by any other historical documents. Most scholars agree that the Gospels were written many years after Christ actually lived, and that some of the Evangelists may have drawn on the work of the others in constructing their accounts. While this is not a reason to doubt general conclusions about the time in which Jesus lived, the places that he visited, the messages he preached, etc., it does not mean that we can treat the statements made as verbatim quotes. The dialogue in the New Testament is largely comprised of recollection, a notably unreliable function of the human psyche. --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 23:08, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

Well that's an assumption. We have the Bible and have the words of Jesus Himself. Now, you can say that He didn't really say things like that or that the Bible is just a recollection of what Christ said as opposed to actual quotes, but that's a baseless claim. There is absolutely no evidence to support your claims that Jesus didn't really say that. You are making a tremendous assumption. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 11:09, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

There is, however, a great deal of evidence to support the belief of many scholars that the books of the New Testament were written several decades after Jesus lived. I don't doubt that the spirit of Jesus' teachings was faithfully preserved by whoever authored the Gospels, but I think that it is also "making a tremendous assumption" to claim that we must believe these are actual quotes of Jesus unless proven otherwise. Historians must always keep in mind the circumstances surrounding the authorship of a document when evaluating its content. Now, many will argue that this is not the case with the Bible because it was divinely inspired, but on what grounds can one make that claim? Because the Bible says so? That seems to be an incredibly circular argument. --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 13:36, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Are there scholars that say that the New Testament was written long after the time of Christ on the Earth? Certainly. But there are also scholars which say that the New Testament was written not long after the time of Christ on the Earth. Scholars debate many things, so just to say, "many scholars claim..." doesn't prove anything, since I can give scholars that will argue the alternative. Ultimately, a very good case can be made for the New Testament that it was written within a generation of the time of Christ on the Earth, by the disciples who knew Him, and in the places that Jesus traveled and preached. And, even if that you would dispute that, it is a fact that the New Testament is the most reliably translated document of the ancient world. So to claim that Jesus really didn't say those things verbatim, well, you have no proof of that other than your assumption that He didn't. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 13:59, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Alright, assuming it was written shortly after the time of Christ, how does this guarantee that the quotes are authentic? I am not "making the assumption" that they aren't, I am just wondering how you are making the assumption that they are. Historians generally err on the side of skepticism, not unwarranted acceptance. --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 14:07, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Because the New Testament (and I suppose that were focusing on the Gospels in particular since we're talking about what Jesus said) were written by the people who knew Christ. His Apostles, like in the cases of Matthew and John, or those who were disciples who worked under the Apostles, like Mark and Luke. Because they traveled with Jesus and knew Him, they knew what He taught. Now, on top of that, you have to consider where the Gospels were written and who they were written to. They were written in the same places that Jesus had taught at. They were written in those same areas; Jerusalem, for examples. And they were written to the people who lived there, who had also been alive in the time of Christ. They had heard his teachings, too. So if the Apostles went around claiming that Jesus had said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6), then it had better be true. Why? Because they were telling it to the same people who had already heard Jesus speak at previous times. They would know if the Apostles were lying or not, or if the teachings had stretched into fabrications. So these facts would necessitate that the Apostles quote Jesus accurately. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 14:22, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Two points: firstly, you are making the assumption that the Gospels were in fact written by the people that tradition purports wrote them. I will go ahead and invoke the opinion of "many scholars" once again (I can provide sources if you feel this debate has become too insubstantial) that the Gospels were not even written by those whose names are attached to them. Secondly, much of the doctrine that I have seen you invoke comes from other parts of the Bible, such as the letters of Paul. These do not even claim to be quotations of Jesus. How is it then that you base your vision of salvation on such a text? --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 14:36, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Please do provide sources. Now, the unanimous opinion of the early church was that the Gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Now, why would they lie? Three out of the four were minor individuals with no great reputation. If they wanted to lie about their authors, they would only do so if it was an attempt to improve their standing and bolster their reputation. So, if you were going to lie, you would attribute their authorship to more well-known individuals. Peter, Thomas, Judas, etc. That’s what later people tried to do. When the later “alleged” Gospels were written, they attributed their authorship to Peter, Thomas, Judas and other bigger figures. But that’s not what the earl Christians did. They attributed the Gospels to minor figures. The only logical reason behind this would be if they were really truly written by these people.

Are you saying that you don’t consider Paul’s work to be part of the New Testament? Luke, who wrote the Gospel by the same name, also wrote the book of Acts. And Acts details Paul’s early persecution of the church, his meeting Jesus and conversion, and his ministry. Throughout the book we see him working with Peter, James etc. Major figures in the church. Peter authenticates Paul’s writings as scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16). So Paul is a very legitimate figure to quote.

Oh, and just as a side-note, are you not going to further comment on the above "YES" section? I just ask because I keep looking at it and want to stop wasting time if we're not going to debate that anymore. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 14:57, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

"''his meeting Jesus''..." Where is this mentioned in the bible please? [[User:BetsyNewson|BetsyNewson]] 10:26, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

Paul's encounter with Christ and conversion on the way to Damascus is detailed in Acts 9. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 15:25, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

==Apostolic Succession==
Iread somewhere that the Catholic and Greek Orthodox churches are the only two that claim to be valid Christian Churches because they trace their history to one of the original apostles. Of that is true then they would be the only Christian churches, the others being formed by men who may be considered heretics of their original faiths [[User:Markr|Markr]] 11:46, 3 December 2008 (EST)
:Agreed. All Protestants were (still are?) considered heretics by the Catholic and Greek Orthodox churches. But I thought [[Martin Luther]] was originally an ordained Catholic priest. So I always believed that most protestants could easily and legitimately trace a successesion back to Christ, either through Luther or through another originally ordained Catholic priest who broke with the Church during the Protestant formation (not sure if formation is the right word here).--[[User:RickD|RickD]] 12:08, 3 December 2008 (EST)
::The Anglican and Methodist churches certainly claim apostolic succession, and I don't think it's widely disputed. I'm not sure about United Reformed or other protestant branches.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:13, 3 December 2008 (EST)

Luther rejected the Holy Orders as a sacrament and instead taught the equal priesthood of all believers. Apostolic Sucsession does not exist in Lutheranism because they rejected the Catholic doctrines of the priesthood. Anglicans also modified the form of ordination and destroyed their apostolic sucsession, although many Anglican priests and bishops today have recieved valid Sucsession from small churches like the Polish Catholic Church. Methodists do not claim the same sort of historical Succession as Catholics and Anglicans, and their ordination process also differs from the Catholic. Reformed and other Protestants have fundamentally different doctrines about the priesthood than Catholicism, and they do not even claim a historical Succession. [[User:AddisonDM]] 20 December 2008

==Turning the tables: What does the Catholic Church think of Pentecostals?==
('''An apology''') It was simply wrong of me to use such colorful terms as "bipolar", "schizophrenic", and "corrupt" in the way I did. It was thoughtless to do so and I should have been far more careful. This is a sensitive debate topic and comments like those could lead to conservapedia being less than friendly place to be--for anyone. Above all, I am sorry to have disrespected [[User:Jpatt]], a fellow Christian.

:As a non-Catholic (as far as my acceptance and confirmation of Sacraments go at least), I decided to find out what the Catholic Church thinks of Pentecostals. To do so, I read Father [http://www.collegevilleinstitute.org/kmdbio Killian McDonnell]’s April 2000 paper “The Pros and Cons of Dialogue With Roman Catholics”, ''[[Journal of Pentecostal Theology]]'', Volume 8, Issue 16, pages 90-101. In that paper Father McDonnell states that [[Pope John Paul II]] refers to Pentecostal Christians among others when he wrote that in "other Communities" "certain features of the Christian mystery have at times been more effectively emphasized" ([http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=4247#iUt Quote from Paragraph 14 in Unum Sint (That They May Be One)]). On the other hand, Cardinal Ratzinger (now [[Pope Benedict XVI]]) has stated [http://www.ciai-s.net/Cardinal_Ratzinger.htm "Salvation only in the Catholic Church"]. I am puzzled and dismayed by this statement. At least on its surface, it seems to be a condemnation of those claiming to be saved, who are outside the Catholic Church and its sacramental system. Yet, I have read a paper by Catholic priest who engaged non-Catholic Pentecostals for 20 years, founded an institute on Catholic-Pentecostal dialoge, and wrote a peer-reviewed paper about it. All that along with a statement by Father McDonnell (written in his paper cited above) "For over 20 years the Catholic Church was the only international church to recognize the significance of the Pentecostals and to enter into formal dialogue with you" is positively promising. Then again, "Salvation only in the Catholic Church" seems less than promising. [[User:RickD|RickD]] 10:50, 10 December 2008 (EST)
::I agree. As a Catholic I was absolutely in love with John Paul II, he really made me proud to be Catholic. Benedict XVI on the other hand...while it may not be proper of me to question the decisions of the Vatican or God...I can't ignore my misgivings regarding him. I felt a palpable sense of love for all peoples and ideas from John Paul II (something I think should be central to any Christians mind set). Benedict XVI seems to focus more on what he perceives as the inadequacies of others. Suffice to say: I dearly miss John Paul II.--[[User:NicholasT|NicholasT]] 08:42, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

Debate:Is it possible to be a conservative and not a religious person or even an atheist?

2009-04-24T12:35:38Z

NicholasT:

Out of interest, as a Catholic, socialist, scientist European, would many on hear say I was not Christian?

==Yes==
Of course. Conservative is not a religion. Conservatives believe in individual freedoms. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 14:08, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:Individual freedoms...Except when they contradict an obscure biblical passage? Or individual freedoms, except when they make soccer moms mildly queasy? Or individual freedoms except that person isn't an American, so why should they have freedoms? I strongly disagree that conservatism is based on individual freedoms. --[[User:Reasonless|Reasonless]] 23:43, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

:I know from personal experience that my transition leftward began a while after I became an atheist.--[[User:Άθεος|Άθεος]] 21:32, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
:I strongly oppose that the most important value of conservatives is individual freedom. Actually, individual freedom is the most important principle of liberalism. In addition, you have to differentiate between value and structure conservatism. Most conservatives are value conservatives and as such regard the traditional values of family, religion, honor and truth or at least some of them higher than individual freedom. Structure conservatives prefer everything remains as it is, simply said, whereas value conservatives favor changes that give more importance to the values above. -- [[User:SchiFra|SchiFra]]

One can't argue from the specific to the general. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 12:12, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
: unless the specific contradicts the general -- [[User:SchiFra|SchiFra]]

:What? First, my statement was to agree with you. Second, if something happens in one specific case then it must be generally possible.--[[User:Άθεος|Άθεος]] 15:24, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:A non-religous conservative is often called a capitalist.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 15:28, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::So sayeth you. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 08:45, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Who cares you are going to burn in hell for denying Jesus[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 23:00, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

:How do you know that God won't send those who believe in him to Hell? Perhaps he wants people to think for themselves and he created the Church in order to test, not man's faith, but man's reason. After all, if God is omnibenevolant, wouldn't He dislike faith because He wants us to use our minds?[[User:Cthx]]

It really is subject to one's definition of conservative. As for the above comment, can you really say that all of the great non-christians in world history, many of whom were far more "christian" than some christians, should "burn in hell?"

well i do know there are some but, not that many given the whole...
--[[User:Wally|Wally]] 19:26, 26 June 2007 (EDT)
:Know your Renaissance eschatology: Dante sez: virtuous Pagans get a castle that's technically inside Hell, but all they have to suffer is knowing that they were wrong.[[User:Cthx]]
::For someone like Socrates, I imagine that would be hell enough. ;D [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 22:24, 11 November 2007 (EST)
Additionally, conservative/liberal are pretty broad terms which I think are greatly overused in the U.S. political landscape. In New Zealand for instance, the leader of our centre-right party is a self-identified agnostic/atheist, and one of our most left-wing parties is led by a staunch Catholic. If anything, I'd say political ideology tends to influence religious character, rather than the other way around. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 22:24, 11 November 2007 (EST)
:::Underscoreb, I think it depends on how you define conservative in the New Zealand setting. Jim Anderton may be economically left wing, but on social matters he is a conservative. Therein lies the difference in my opinion. I think it is hard to be a social conservative and an atheist. Various economic policies can come from all over the religious spectrum.[[User:DamianJohn]]

Broadly speaking by definition: A U.S. Conservative traditionally is in support of fiscal freedom and moderate social controls. A Liberal traditionally is in support of social freedom and moderate fiscal controls. Recently though, the truth of the matter has become infinitely complex than that. Bottom line: yes it is possible.--[[User:NicholasT|NicholasT]] 08:35, 24 April 2009 (EDT)
[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

Talk:World History Lecture Eleven

2009-04-24T12:25:57Z

NicholasT:

Talk:World History Lecture Eleven

2009-04-24T12:20:58Z

NicholasT: /* Regarding Trotsky */ new section

Cherokee

2009-04-23T13:59:58Z

NicholasT: added some basic info on Cherokee clans, along with cherokee pronunciation. Also added reference to the cherokee's traditional name for thier tribe.

The '''Cherokee''' or '''Tsalagi''' are a tribe of [[North American Indians]] ([[Native Americans]]) who originally lived in the area of the southern [[Appalachian Mountains]] from the western Carolinas and eastern [[Tennessee]] to northern [[Georgia]], and now reside primarily in [[North Carolina]] and [[Oklahoma]]. It can also refer to the Iroquoian [[Tsalagi|language]] spoken by the Cherokee. There are "Cherokee Counties" in several states, including [[Texas]], [[South Carolina]], Oklahoma, and Georgia. The Cherokee were the largest Native American (Indian) group in the [[United States]], several tribes formed the "Cherokee Nation". The name is derived from the Creek Indian, meaning "people with another language." <ref>http://www.native-languages.org/cherokee.htm</ref>

While some Indian tribes, notably the Coquille, allow same-sex marriage, the Cherokee and [[Navajo]] do not. <ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26344598/</ref> In 2006, a same-sex Cherokee pair in Oklahoma got married (although they never submitted the marriage certificate to government officials outside the tribe) and shortly afterward, the Cherokee Tribal council adopted a law banning same-sex marriage. <ref>
http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=glbt&sc2=&sc3=&id=79241</ref> <ref>http://www.redorbit.com/news/general/348373/top_us_indian_court_upholds_first_gay_marriage/index.html</ref>

For racial reasons, in 2007 a group of [[Democratic Party|Democrat]] congressmen and congresswomen introduced a bill in the [[United States House of Representatives|U.S. House of Representatives]] to "terminate" the Cherokee Nation.<ref>http://www.tanasijournal.com/main/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=365&Itemid=1&ed=53</ref> The Democratic Party has long history of antipathy towards [[American Indian]]s, most notably Democrat president [[Andrew Jackson]], who was responsible for a forced relocation of thousands of American Indians known as the "Trail of Tears."

===Cherokee Tribes===

The Cherokee societal structure is divided into 7 clans within the Cherokee nation. A Cherokee inherits his clan from his mother.<ref>http://www.georgiatribeofeasterncherokee.com/cherokeeclans.htm</ref>

* The Long Hair clan (a-ni-gi-lo-hi)

* The Wild Potato clan (a-ni-go-da-ge-wi)

* The Deer clan (a-ni-a-ha-wi)

* The Bird clan (a-ni-tsi-s-qua)

* The Wolf clan (a-ni-wa-ya)

* The Paint clan (a-ni-wo-di)

* The Blue clan (a-ni-sa-ho-ni)

==References==

<references/>

==External Links==
*[http://www.cherokee.org/ The Cherokee Nation]
*[http://www.cherokeehistory.com/ Cherokee history]
*[http://www.native-languages.org/cherokee.htm Cherokee language]
*[http://www.aboutcherokee.com/ About Cherokee]

== See also ==
*[[Cherokee Nation v. the State of Georgia]]
*[[Indian Removal Act of 1830]]

[[Category:Native Americans]]

Talk:Redneck

2009-04-21T13:23:29Z

NicholasT: Appropriate?

== Appropriate? ==

I question the appropriateness of having an entire article dedicated to this. I see very little educational value. Maybe if there was an article on racial slurs as a whole, although this constitutes more of a cultural defamation. I mean, in all honesty, this term is the southern, white, blue collar equivalent of a certain other slur that starts with an N and ends with a R. I see no reason to have it here. This is coming from someone who has lived in a small town in middle Georgia for almost his entire life. Just an observation. --[[User:NicholasT|NicholasT]] 09:23, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

Debate:Is it possible to be conservative and know there is no possibility of there ever being a "God" and/or higher being?

2009-04-17T15:38:30Z

NicholasT:

Most of the people I know call me conservative-independent, because I believe in many values such as unsociallised medicine, taxation favouring the wealthy, etc. However, I am also an ardent atheist. Would I be classified as conservative?

==Yes==

==No==
Are you familiar with [http://www.lp.org/ Libertarian] values? If a moniker should be applied to you, it sounds like that would be appropriate. --[[User:NicholasT|NicholasT]] 11:38, 17 April 2009 (EDT)

Debate: At what point does "Human" life begin?

2009-04-13T13:58:38Z

NicholasT: /* Human Life begins at a certain stage of neonatal development */

{{Debate}}

==Background==

One of the fundamental issues in the pro-life/pro-choice controversy is determining when human life begins, particularly in terms of being regarded as fully "human" in the eyes of the law. The catalyst for this page was the legislative initiative in North Dakota to define human life from the earliest possible stage. The bill declares that "any organism with the genome of homo sapiens" is a person protected by rights granted by the North Dakota Constitution and state laws. This interpretation would not only define unborn, developing fetuses in the womb as fully human, but also carry the label and legal protections of being fully human to fertilized human eggs or frozen embryos that have yet to be implanted in a mother's womb.

Others feel that life as a human begins once a baby is independent of the womb and can survive in that mode, even if significant medical assistance is required. In this context, a developing fetus still in the womb in the 7th month is not a human being, but if prematurely born at that time it becomes one because it is now independent of the mother's body.

Neither definition is satisfactory to people who stand fully behind being either pro-life or pro-choice, and each side has compelling reasons to support those positions. The purpose of this debate page is to allow those ideas and expressions to be given a fair and open airings, which will hopefully provide guidance to people who are unsure if the truth is one side, the other, or somewhere in the middle.

Please note that the section labels below do not represent the only options - they are placeholders to organize responses, so new sections can be added as appropriate.

==Human Life begins with a fertilized egg==

==Human Life begins with childbirth==

==Human Life begins at a certain stage of neonatal development==

It is my belief that life begins at the point where the brain has developed sufficiently for the fetus to be "self aware". Essentially when the brain is formed to the point that non automatic (or regulatory) brain activity (such as non auto response to stimulus) can be registered. Prior to this I consider the fetus a cell cluster, in the same way that I consider my heart a muscle.

On a side note, I wish there was more activity in the debate boards, or am I just missing it? I do love debate, and I realize that talk pages are usually not appropriate for such things, which is why I wish there was more going on around these parts. I'm not sure if this particular subject is especially debatable, since much of it hinges on personal belief rather than empirical fact with verifiable veracity.

Also, a question. Should any syops happen to wander around this way, I was wondering. Where do debate posts fall within the 90/10 rule. As I said before I love debate, but I would not want to violate any rules. I hope that partaking in ongoing debate counts as worthwhile contribution.--[[User:NicholasT|NicholasT]] 09:58, 13 April 2009 (EDT)

==Human Life begins earlier than that==
Human life began 6000 or so years ago. The gametes in the sex organs are small parts of humans and are just as human as when they have fertilised an egg and grown into an adult, albeit less developed. In the same way that an unattached exhaust pipe is still part of a car, and a new car cn be built around it, all cells of a human are in themnselves human.

Heath Ledger

2009-02-23T03:50:41Z

NicholasT: /* Career */

'''Heath Ledger''' was an Oscar-nominated<ref>http://imdb.com/name/nm0005132/awards</ref> [[Australia]]n actor who became a [[Hollywood]] icon after his portrayal of a [[homosexual]] cowboy in the 2005 movie ''[[Brokeback Mountain]]''.

==Career==
Following roles in Australian movies and TV series, Ledger was cast in his first American film ''10 Things I Hate About You'' in 1999. Following this he appeared in [[Mel Gibson]]'s Revolutionary War drama ''The Patriot'' in 2000 and was given the lead role in the 2001 movie ''A Knight's Tale''. At the time of his death, he had just completed filming the 2008 Batman movie ''The Dark Knight'', in which he plays [[The Joker]]. For this part he has posthumously received the 2009 Golden Globe award and the Academy award for Best Supporting Actor in a motion picture. Ledger's mother, father and sister were present to accept his Oscar.

==Personal Life==
Ledger had a relationship with Michelle Williams, who played his on-screen wife Alma in ''Brokeback Mountain'', and fathered a daughter, Matilda Rose, who was born in 2005. The couple were separated at the time of his death.

==Death==
Ledger was found unconscious in his bed by a masseuse<ref>http://edition.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/Movies/02/06/heath.ledger/index.html</ref> at his rented SoHo ([[Manhattan]]) loft apartment on January 22, 2008. The masseuse called Ledger's girlfriend, but did not call 911 until he had stopped breathing, approximately 45 minutes later. The New York City medical examiner said Ledger died "as the result of acute intoxication by the combined effects" of six different prescription drugs: [[oxycodone]], [[hydrocodone]], [[diazepam]], [[temazepam]], [[alprazolam]] and [[doxylamine]]. Police had said at the time of the discovery of his death that no illicit drugs or alcohol were found in the apartment.<ref>http://www.theage.com.au/news/people/bpeopleb-ledgers-cause-of-death-to-be-made-public-overnight/2008/02/06/1202233881451.html</ref> Medical examiner spokeswoman Ellen Borakove said: "What you're looking at here is the cumulative effects of these medications together."
== References ==

<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT: Ledger, Heath}}
[[Category: Actors]]

William Shakespeare

2008-08-19T00:08:30Z

NicholasT: I slightly altered the reference to the Scottish play's curse to be more acurate to the beliefs held by most stage actors. I have no specific source, however, I do have a BA in Performance Theatre.

[[Image:Foliou.jpg|right|thumb|[[portraits|Portrait]] of William Shakespeare on the cover of the First Folio (1623), the first collected edition of his plays]]
'''William Shakespeare''' (1564-1616) is the greatest English-language playwright of all time. Many of his plays are required reading in many U. S. school curricula; those taught in schools often include ''[[Romeo and Juliet]]'', ''[[Macbeth]]'', ''[[A Midsummer-Night's Dream]]'' and ''[[Hamlet]]''.

Shakespeare wrote 17 comedies, 10 tragedies, 10 historical plays, 154 love [[sonnet]]s, and several other works of on-dramatic poetry. All his plays are freely available on the internet.<ref>
http://www-tech.mit.edu/Shakespeare/</ref>

Shakespeare lived in Stratford-upon-Avon, [[Warwickshire]] and is also known as "the bard of Avon." Because of sharing the name "Stratford," the towns of Stratford, Ontario, in Canada and Stratford, Connecticut, have become the homes of Shakespeare festivals where his plays are performed on a regular basis.

Shakespeare did not become famous until late in his life and consequently historians and biographers know very little about his earlier life. There are few pictures of him and the accuracy of the pictures is disputed.

The idea of an ill-educated (to his contemporaries) person coming among them and making a success was upsetting to the University-educated playwrights of the time. It is believed that the poet, Philip Green, was referring to Shakespeare when he wrote

"There is an upstart crow beautified with our feathers
that, with his '''tiger's heart wrapped in a player's hide'','
supposes he is as well able to bombast out a blank verse
as the best of you; being an absolute Johannes Factotum,
in his conceit the only ''shake-scene'' in a country."

The 'tiger's heart wrapped in a player's hide' is a reference to one of Shakespeare's plays, ''[[The Third Part of King Henry VI]]'',<ref> [[Great Books, Shakespeare: I]], Edited by Mortimer J. Adler, 1952. </ref> while 'shake-scene' is a pun or play on words on Shakespeare's name.

His plays seem to show so much education and erudition that there are even theories that they must have been written by someone else, famous candidates being the Earl of Oxford and Sir Francis Bacon. Most scholars do not believe these theories, but there are enough questions that new theories of Shakespearean authorship continue arise over the years.

A long-standing theatrical [[superstition]] holds that it is bad luck to refer to ''Macbeth'' directly by its name while inside a theatre, and accordingly, actors traditionally refer to it obliquely as "the Scottish play." It is considered acceptable to voice the play's name only while rehearsing or performing the production itself.

Because Shakespeare's plays are so familiar, there are innumerable references to them in British literature. Sometimes his stories are recast into a different form. The musical ''West Side Story'' is a retelling of ''Romeo and Juliet,'' and the classic science-fiction movie ''Forbidden Planet'' is a transformed version of ''The Tempest.'' The motion picture ''Shakespeare in Love,'' which won the 1998 Academy Award as Best Picture is not a history or biography, but is enjoyed for evoking a sense of what Shakespeare's time and place might have been like.

The reverence in which Shakespeare is held, and the language of his plays (which come from the same era as the King James translation of the Bible) should not obscure the fact that his plays were (and still are) fabulously successful.

He is also famous for his 154 sonnets, short poems written in a very strict rhyme scheme. The sonnets fall into series or sequences. Most of them are usually read as expressions of romantic or platonic love; some appear to be written to a married woman known in the sonnets as the "Dark Lady," some to a young man known as the "Fair Lord."

In common with the majority of the population at the time, Shakespeare wrote in his will, "I commend my soul into the hands of God, my Creator, hoping and assuredly believing, through the only merits of Jesus Christ, my Saviour, to be made partaker of life everlasting."<ref>http://www.amerisearch.net/index.php?date=2004-04-23&view=View</ref>

His tomb in Holy Trinity Church, Stratford-on-Avon, England, reads as follows:<ref>''Id.''</ref>

:Good Friend For Jesus Sake Forbeare, To Digg The Dust Enclosed Heare. Blese Be Ye Man Spares Thes Stones, And Curst Be He Moves My Bones.

== List of Plays by Shakespeare[http://absoluteshakespeare.com/trivia/bibliography/bibliography.htm] ==

=== Comedies ===
*[[Two Gentlemen of Verona]] (1589)
*[[A Comedy of Errors]] (1589)
*[[The Taming of the Shrew]] (1593)
*[[Love's Labour's Lost]] (1594)
*[[A Midsummer-Night's Dream]] (1595)
*[[The Merchant of Venice]] (1596)
*[[The Merry Wives of Windsor]] (1597)
*[[Much Ado About Nothing]] (1598)
*[[As You Like It]] (1599)
*[[Twelfth Night]] (1601)
*[[All's Well That Ends Well]] (1602)
*[[Measure for Measure]] (1603)
*[[Pericles, Prince of Tyre]] (1607)
*[[Cymbeline]] (1609)
*[[A Winter's Tale]] (1609)
*[[The Tempest]] (1610)
*[[The Two Noble Kinsmen]] (1611)

=== Histories ===
*[[The Life and Death of King John]] (1590)
*[[The First Part of King Henry VI]] (1590)
*[[The Second Part of King Henry VI]] (1592)
*[[The Third Part of King Henry VI]] (1593)
*[[The Tragedy of King Richard III]] (1593)
*[[The Tragedy of King Richard II]] (1595)
*[[The First Part of King Henry IV]] (1596)
*[[The Second Part of King Henry IV]] (1597)
*[[The Famous Life of King Henry V]] (1599)
*[[The Famous Life of King Henry VIII]] (1613)

=== Tragedies ===
*[[Titus Andronicus]] (1591)
*[[Romeo and Juliet]] (1594)
*[[Julius Caesar (Play)]] (1599)
*[[Troilus and Cressida]] (1600)
*[[Hamlet]] (1600)
*[[Othello]] (1603)
*[[Timon of Athens]] (1604)
*[[King Lear]] (1605)
*[[Macbeth]] (1606)
*[[Coriolanus]] (1608)
*[[Antony and Cleopatra]] (1608)

== Trivia ==
* "Shakespeare" was spelled many ways before English spelling was standardized. Some of the more unexpected forms are "Shaxper," "Shaxberd," and "Shaksper."<ref>http://shakespeareauthorship.com/name1.html</ref>

== See also ==

*[[Leo Tolstoy]]
*[[Miguel De Cervantes Saavedra]]

== External links ==

*[http://books.mirror.org/gb.shakespeare.html An Index to Online Great Books]

==References==
<references/>

-----

{{DEFAULTSORT:Shakespeare, William}}

[[Category:Playwrights|Shakespeare, William]]
[[category:poets|Shakespeare, William]]
[[Category:Writers]]
[[Category:England]]