Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 September 11

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

September 11

Defense against rape accusations in India

The defense lawyer in the 2012 Dehli gang rape case said that his defendants were not guilty because the victims deserved what happened to them for being unmarried and out late together. Is this an actual legal defense? I would expect such an argument to be blocked, a lawyer making it to be thrown off the case, and probably to be disbarred, if he made the argument in the US. I know in the past in the US a woman's dress or behavior was used to argue consent, and that no rape happened. But the lawyer here is not declaring consent-he's supposedly saying they deserved the rape and beating. Is this an alowable defense, and is there a theory that names it? μηδείς (talk) 03:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

"alowable defense" [sic] is not a recognized concept in most common law, to my knowledge. There are common motifs that defense attorneys use, such as "circumstantial evidence", but there's rarely a codification of those distinctions in the actual law. The most relevant example I can think of to your question is the question of marital rape, which was widely said to be "not a crime" until the change in the law. That "not a crime" statement is true under old school common law, but whether or not that held true under a multitude of jurisdictions in post civil war America (Britain had similarly abandoned most of these old black letter common law rules too), I think that's a phd worthy topic. I haven't ever read any legal scholarship on that point. My instinct is that you're viewing a lawyer's obligation for a defense as some example of the absurdity of common law adversarial legal systems. I have serious doubts that your premise is correct. I seriously doubt that Indian law has some categorical exception to rape based on a woman's dress. If they did, and we can cite it, please point it out. It will certainly be a major topic until it's fixed. I highly doubt that's the case. Shadowjams (talk) 08:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

It is not "my premise", I am asking a question, not making an argument. μηδείς (talk) 17:42, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Contributory negligence is an obvious article to link, as is Victim blaming, which references the case in question. Where the former is argued, though, there is not usually any attempt to argue the total blamelessness of the perpetrator, but only to offer mitigation. Your example of "the victim deserved it" goes one step further than than "the victim didn't take reasonable precautions to avoid it" by arguing that the perpetrator is merely the automatic instrument of the victim's self-inflicted injury, rather like the sea in the case of a person who drowned during a drunken swim. I haven't found any references to this as a successful defence strategy in modern times or to a technical term for it, although I wouldn't be surprised to do so somewhere along the line. -Karenjc 08:55, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

In the UK at least, the issues are raised in a slightly different way and are worth clarifying. A legal defence is something you bring after all the elements of a crime have already been proven - which is normally a risky strategy because you accept the elements are there. So for example if I kill someone in self-defence, I accept that I shot them intending to do grievous bodily harm and did in fact kill them, but that I have the defence of self-defence. There is no such defence known to English law involving a woman's dress or behavior, or as go on to say, desert. There's a very specific list of defences and none come close to covering this situation where the victim is not believed to be about to commit a crime (as in self defence). To cover the point about consent, it is not a defence, but rather the lack of reasonable belief in consent is an element of most sexual crimes (those involving victims capable of consenting). The standard under English law used to be honest belief in consent but the standard was changed largely to avoid spurious reasons for believing in consent such as dress (also the appearance to potential victims coming forward to police that they mattered). So as you can hopefully see at no stage is there the possibility of desert featuring nor has there been for a long time. The closest I can think of is vigilantism, but that's long been illegal in the UK. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Often this sort of thing gets misreported. Take the Italian "jeans" case — what the Court of Cassation said was that it is difficult to remove such jeans by force, so it's evidence that the accuser cooperated. You might not think that's a very strong evidentiary argument, and maybe you're right — but what they absolutely did not say was that she must have been a loose woman for wearing such tight jeans, and that's the interpretation that got publicly presented. --Trovatore (talk) 08:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Also worth noting that those statements by the lawyer were not made in court, but in media interviews. Deciding whether he was just trying to gain public "sympathy" for his clients, notoriety for himself, or expressing his true thoughts would be speculative on my part. Abecedare (talk) 10:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

It's perhaps worth noting that the name of the lawyer said to have made the statement in our article is stated in this article [1] to no longer be representing anyone in the case and was potentially only ever representing one of the accused anyway. The same source suggests the lawyers have been publicling sniping at each other (not exactly uncommon in this sort of thing thoroughout the world AFAIK) and also seems to provide more detail on their defences and also near the end further explaination for what that earlier lawyer was saying (which was not that they raped and killed her but it was her own fault so they don't deserve to be punished). From what I read, one of the basic aspects of the defence has been that most of confessions were coerced also generally mentioned in other sources [2]. Nil Einne (talk) 13:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I was wondering if this was actually made in court rather than to the press. But an American judge would have no problem removing the lawyer for his statements to the press. Again, what strikes me here is that the comments don't deny there was a rape. They justify the rape. If those familiar with Indian jurisprudence can say this sort of hyperbole (if you can call it that) is common I can accept that. What I am wondering is, are the lawyer's statements in this case to be expected under some common concept like, say, honor killing, or is this an unusual tactic? μηδείς (talk) 17:42, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Medeis, can you find us a quote of what was actually said? The question about your "premise", above, is that frankly most of us don't believe the lawyer ever said this. He might have said something that someone took to mean what you say, but that's a different matter. --Trovatore (talk) 18:17, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Oop, I think I found something. This is really fun.

It's in our article:

Mukesh Singh, Vinay Sharma, Akshay Thakur and Pawan Gupta denied the charges.[74][75] On 10 January, their lawyer, Manohar Lal Sharma, said in a media interview that the victims are responsible for the assault because they should not have been using public transportation and, as an unmarried couple, they should not have been on the streets at night. He went on to say: "Until today I have not seen a single incident or example of rape with a respected lady. Even an underworld don would not like to touch a girl with respect."[76] He also called the male victim "wholly responsible" for the incident because he "failed in his duty to protect the woman".[76]

and has been widely reported in the press where I first read of it. How did this become about me? μηδείς (talk) 20:54, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Hmm? I never said it was about you. No one else did either.

I don't see anything in the quote that claims the rape was justified. Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending what the lawyer said; it was not a good thing to say under the circumstances, but it doesn't say it was OK or that it wasn't rape. (I have since looked up some of the links presented, and it doesn't appear that the lawyer claims that there was no rape; he says his (former?) client didn't do it.)

The only thing I can see there that might lead you to present the quote as saying the rape was justified was the line about the companion being "wholly responsible", but the only way that would imply justification is if you think of responsibility as some sort of a pie that can be divided up, and the pieces have to total 100%, never more and never less (well, at least never more). It's a big logical leap to assume the lawyer meant it that way. --Trovatore (talk) 21:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I am not interested in discussing your opinion of my opinion. The question stands, and answers like Nil's that the lawyer is not or no longer involved in the case are much more enlightening. μηδείς (talk) 21:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about your opinion. In your question, you said the lawyer said "his defendants were not guilty because the victims deserved what happened to them". But no, in fact, he did not say that, or at least if he did, it has not been reported in the quotes given. --Trovatore (talk) 08:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

That's very interesting Trovatore. Of course you are denying the truth of a direct quote I never made, as I was using indirect speech that was accurate enough for the context. I am still not interested in discussing this further, but I will let you know the next time I have a nit that needs picking. μηδείς (talk) 16:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

But it is not a nit, and it was not accurate enough for the context. You attributed to him a claim that he never made, and the claim you attributed was central to the question you asked. --Trovatore (talk) 17:03, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

But did you actually read what the lawyer said in the ref I provided? It includes a bunch of conspiracy theories and frankly wacky stuff, as well some degree of what can be considered victim blaming, but as Trovatore and I have said, it seems clear he isn't saying she was raped but it's her fault. In fact he denies a rape even happened (or murder, since he thinks she's still alive a murder is inherently impossible). I didn't look that well at the other lawyers who were still involved in the case said (only two of the three commented in the source I provided) but from what I did see while they may have said some controversial stuff, I don't think anyone is saying she was raped by my client but he shouldn't be punished because it's her fault. Whatever other dodgy stuff they may have said, it seems clear the basic defence is a denial of any allegations of rape against their clients (at most some rough treatment or fighting), whether that's because they allege she wasn't raped or allege someone else did it and their client didn't assist or was otherwise involved in a way which would make them guilty. In other words, whatever else was said and however that may have been treated, the basic defence is one that, at least from my understanding, is a valid one in the US. Nil Einne (talk) 14:12, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

• In the meantime, I have indeed discovered the cultural concept Eve teasing, which is based on the notion that an unchaperoned woman is fair game for sexual predation. That seems to be exactly the idea which the "lawyer" was relying on in his statement. μηδείς (talk) 16:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

What sentence could William Ruto face?

At the International Criminal Court? thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiplimo Kenya (talk • contribs) 03:22, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

According to this document: "If the judges find Ruto and/or Sang guilty, the court can sentence them to a length of time in prison and/or order property taken in order to pay reparations to victims. Ruto and Sang will not receive the death penalty if found guilty, as that is prohibited under ICC rules. If they are found not guilty, they will go free and will retain the presumption of innocence." Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Links:William Ruto, Joshua Sang, Henry Kosgey, 2007–08 Kenyan crisis. -- ToE 12:49, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

..and, more specifically, International Criminal Court investigation in Kenya. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Imperial Roman Army Picture Error

In the Imperial Roman Army section there is an error in one of the pictures. The picture is the typical Roman Soldier that is pictured from all directions. The error is that the strap on the shield in the picture is vertical while straps on Roman's shields are horizontal. if you could please change this minute detail it would be much appreciated by a hard-core Roman history fan Chaimek (talk) 04:49, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I assume you're talking about [3] / [4]? The problem is, these pictures are based on an autoCAD file that we may not have. The author Strikerg13 hasn't been active for a year - you can try e-mailing him, maybe he still gets Wiki emails. Wnt (talk) 07:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Model is from an Autodesk 3DS Max file from Rome Total War mod called Roma Surrectum II. The "author" probably didn't get permission to use the model from its creator.
Sleigh (talk) 09:48, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I've asked Wikipedia Media Copyright Questions to look into the copyright question. 184.147.119.141 (talk) 12:10, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

For the curious, surrectum means "rises", not what it looks like it means... MChesterMC (talk) 15:56, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Some discussion on how Roman shields were held is here. Apparently only one rectangular example has ever been found. Alansplodge (talk) 21:00, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Things could be worse. According to some "film flubs" sources, a Roman guard at the crucifixion in the movie King of Kings was seen wearing a wrist watch in his scene. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:17, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

And that famous cameo by John Wayne in The Greatest Story Ever Told, where, at the same crucifixion, he says solemnly "Truly this was the Son o' Gahd". I'm sure I caught him adding "pilgrim" at the end, but the official quote doesn't have that word. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Great. I'm now getting a mental picture of Wayne doing his famous ambling walk - in a Roman soldier's outfit. It could be worse, though - they could have used Marvin the Martian. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't remember where I read this, possibly a book called simply "Movie Anecdotes" or something, but apparently after Wayne said the line, the director told him "give it more awe". So the next take, he said "Awww, truly this man was the son of God". Adam Bishop (talk) 11:37, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

What now for Thompson and De Blasio campaigning?

So the NY Democratic Mayoral Primary is on a knife-edge. With 98% of votes counted De Blasio has 40.2%, enough to avoid a runoff. But there are still the 2% to count from absentee ballots, and they could quite believably push De Blasio to 39.9%, thus triggering a second election in 3 weeks time against Bill Thompson.

Here's my question: The absentee ballots won't be entirely counted (according to the media) for days, maybe until next week. What do the candidates do until then? If De Blasio falls to 39.9% then he and Thompson can hardly afford to miss the first third of the campaign not doing anything. But if it doesn't then De Blasio won't want to waste resources fighting Democrats when he could save them up fight Lhota with. And Thompson will (presumably) endorse and assist De Blasio to win the general election if he's the party nominee, so he may not want to slam him for a week. What is the usual course of events? Do the campaigns pause? 86.163.125.91 (talk) 09:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Don't know what they'll actually do, but this would seem to be a wonderful opportunity for them to invent the concept of, dare I say it, positive campaigning! (We don't have an article about it, unlike negative campaigning, so presumably it hasn't been invented yet.) Duoduoduo (talk) 20:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

human guinea pigs

Is Nazi Germany the last time non-consenting human beings were used for medical experiments? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.25.4.14 (talk) 10:40, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

No, the US did a lot of this too. Look at Tuskegee syphilis experiment and the whole set of unethical human experimentation in the United States. I doubt they're alone. The UK had some similar issues with chemical weapons trials from Porton Down and Nancekuke, where servicemen 'volunteered' for trials, but without knowledge of just what they were being exposed to. At least one died at the time. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Saying the US did "a lot" of this is a bit of an exaggeration. These links at google give lists of such experiments, some associated with the Soviet Union, but they may not be reliable. μηδείς (talk) 17:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Many countries carried out small scale experiments of dubious morality. However the USA also had a number of large-scale epidemiological studies, looking at disease spread in populations, radiological and bacterial contamination. They carried out large dispersal experiments over populated areas - and of course those around the Nevada and Micronesia test sites. I know of no other country (possibly the UK nuke tests in Australia) that carried out any similar experiments on a comparable scale. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:24, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

See also Human subject research and Human experimentation in North Korea. -Karenjc 15:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

See blood substitute. Nobody wants to be the victim of cheap reformulated expired blood products (actually, I doubt it'd really be cheaper, just more proprietary...) so virtually any experiment done with them involves non-consenting subjects, and ensuing fatalities. Wnt (talk) 22:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

A lot depends on how you define consenting. "Approximately 235,000 DoD military and civilian personnel participated in U.S. atmospheric nuclear tests that were conducted primarily in Nevada and the Pacific Ocean between 1945 and 1962", according to the Defense Threat Reduction Agency.[5] Clarityfiend (talk) 05:30, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the idea of informed consent has matured a lot over the years. μηδείς (talk) 16:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Hindi literature

My history textbook says that while Urdu, Tamil, Bengali and Marathi print culture had developed eary, Hindi printing began seriously only from the 1870s. Why was this so? --Yashowardhani (talk) 14:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Down to the Mutiny of 1857, most of the potential patrons of literature in the core "Hindustani"-speaking areas would have been Muslims, who favored a Perso-Arabic influenced version of the language written in Arabic script, i.e. Urdu. The major non-English language of Indian nationalism in the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century seems to have been "Sanskritized Bengali" (see Vande Mataram, Jana Gana Mana etc.)... AnonMoos (talk) 22:10, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, I didn't get one word of what you said. Can you please elaborate? --Yashowardhani (talk) 06:20, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

If I elaborated beyond what I know or can reasonably deduce, then I'd be making stuff up. However, the ordinary common spoken village language of north central India at that time (sometimes referred to as "Hindustani") was neutral as between Urdu and Hindi. When spoken Hindustani was developed into a literary language by means of borrowing Persian and Arabic words, and written in the Arabic alphabet, it became Urdu; when spoken Hindustani was developed into a literary language by means of borrowing Sanskrit words, and written in the Devanagari alphabet, it became Hindi... AnonMoos (talk) 14:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Now I get it. Thanks! --Yashowardhani (talk) 11:10, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

How much money goes into the Roman Catholic Church every year?

Seeing that the Roman Catholic Church have so many parishes and hospitals and monasteries and academic institutions scattered abroad, how much money would go into the Roman Catholic Church each year? In terms of spendings, does it spend money on philanthropic causes, and if so, how much does it spend and to where does it spend? 164.107.214.48 (talk) 15:56, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Here is some information for the RCC in America specifically; not worldwide, but it does give some information as to American catholicism --Jayron32 16:47, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Some partial info at Peter's Pence#The revived Roman Catholic custom... -- AnonMoos (talk) 22:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Grandchildren of Henry VIII - supposed daughters of his son Henry FitzRoy

The articles about Henry VIII of England and Henry FitzRoy, 1st Duke of Richmond and Somerset, claim that the latter "left two illegitimate daughters". The claim is sourced to page 255 of Sir Geoffrey Elton's book called Reform and Reformation: England, 1509-1558. I've found the book on Google Books, but I cannot access the 255th page. What exactly does it say? I have a hard time believing that so little would be known about the only grandchildren of Henry VIII, who would have had some claim to the throne during the reign of their childless half-aunt (who, by the way, would have been younger than them). Surtsicna (talk) 17:59, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I now see the information was first added by Grandiose on 19 March 2013, replacing the statement that Richmond died childless. I hope he'll respond to this ping :) Surtsicna (talk) 18:10, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't have the book available to me. It's certainly possible that I got confused, since Henry VIII himself left two (somewhat retrospectively) illegitimate daughters, so I'm sorry I can't be of more help verifying or correcting this. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

It does seem strange for a 17-year-old, though obviously not impossible. (Curiously, there is a reference to "two illegitmate daughters" in this biography of FitzRoy, although in reference to his maternal greatgrandfather, Sir Hugh Peshall. Source of confusion or just a coincidence of wording?) You can request a pdf of the missing page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request; they did that for me recently.184.147.119.141 (talk) 22:17, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The passage in the Elton book reads: "Henry in fact at this point had three illegitimate children—Henry duke of Richmond, Mary and Elizabeth. It was widely thought that he would leave the throne to the first, but the boy died in late June, leaving only two bastardized offspring, both girls". Elton does not cite a source. The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography entry on FitzRoy mentions nothing about them.--Britannicus (talk) 22:52, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Well I defend my right to be confused from that (!), but I think if they aren't mentioned elsewhere, the two bastardized offspring are Mary and Elizabeth. Thanks Britannicus. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Ha, yes it is convoluted. I thought the two daughters was referring to FitzRoy as well, not Henry!--Britannicus (talk) 23:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The confusion is justified, of course. I've corrected the articles. Thank you all! Surtsicna (talk) 11:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Russian Beauharnais

Why weren't the children of Maximilian de Beauharnais, 3rd Duke of Leuchtenberg raised in their father's religion? A similar Russianization occurred with the descendants of Duke George of Oldenburg (who also died when his children were young) but they retained their Lutheran faith except for one granddaughter who married a Russian grand duke.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 19:14, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Are the references in Grand Duchess Maria Nikolaevna of Russia (1819–1876) enough? (Belyakova, Zoia. Grand Duchess Maria Nikolayevna and her palace in St Peterburg. Ego Pubushers, ISBN 5-8276-0011-3 and Radzinsky, Edvard. Alexander II, The Last Great Tsar. Free Press, 2005, ISBN 0-7432-7332-X.) As I read the article, these books used to source two reasons: Because religion was a condition of his marriage and because the children were brought up in Russia, in the care of their maternal uncle Tsar Alexander II. 184.147.119.141 (talk) 22:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Who saw Christian art?

I have heard several times that the decoration in Medieval churches served as a Poor Man's Bible. Illiterates (i.e., most of the people) could find images of the people and stories that priests talked about. However, when visiting Gothic or Romanesque sites, I have difficulties to appreciate a lot of the art. It is too small or too far for me to see. I am remembering in special the windows of the Sainte Chapelle in Paris. I don't have a perfect sight but we count on electrical lighting while Medievals had to rely on candles and sunlight, and Medieval masses did not have optical corrections (while natural selection would have removed the worst sighted).

So my questions are:

• Did Medieval people actually see their Christian art?
• How was it applied? Did preachers during Mass point to specific depictions or did the faithful learn who was who elsewhere?

--Error (talk) 23:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I think the idea that they could somehow learn Christian messages from images is pretty silly. You don't need images to tell a story. You can just...tell the story. The images add next to nothing. What they do is create a sense of majesty, power, spectacle and glory. They are a portal into a "magical" world of beauty and sophistication. The interpretation of the images gives the viewer an emotional connection between the experience and the ideas they convey. Of course that was one of the Protestant criticisms of Catholic use of images, especially as visual deception became more powerful during the Renaissance (see the work of the Correggio or Cortona). Did medieval people see the art? Yes, of course, but not as clearly as we do. Did the preachers point out images? Yes, they did, and there is evidence from sermons that they did. But it was not a major feature of preaching. Most likely the laity learned the meaning of images from local priests. Paul B (talk) 00:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Electric lighting doesn't add anything to a Gothic cathedral during the day. Sainte-Chapelle is quite bright inside, as is Notre Dame. Does Notre Dame even have any lights on during the day? I can't remember, but the similar cathedral in Nantes doesn't need any, sunlight is perfectly sufficient. That's what all the windows are for! Some of the art is too far away, but remember that when these churches were built, people could go up to the higher floors and up to the top of the towers. Usually you can't walk up there anymore because it's unsafe (unless it has been restored to make it safe, like Notre Dame). There is also art on the exterior of these churches - Gothic cathedrals typically have art above the main doorway, depicting Judgement Day. Also, you may have trouble appreciating or understanding the art because we are mostly unfamiliar with it now. If that was the normal way that you learned about the Bible, the images would be more familiar to you. Note that even modern Catholic churches have a lot of art, such as depictions of the Stations of the Cross. People still learn that way, if they go to church. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:00, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

People in those days also were typically illiterate, as well as being more "into" the church. Certainly the illustrations reinforced the biblical lessons. Some say that they were in some sense a "library" for the illiterate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:14, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

The Great East Window at York Minster has illustrations of Bible stories on glass panels about 3 feet square and it's the size of a tennis court standing on its end,[6] starting about 10 feet off the ground. Some panels have "speech bubbles" of Gothic writing on little scrolls coming from the characters mouths. There is no way that they can be read from the ground, even with binoculars. I'm fairly certain that they were intended for God to read, because humans couldn't. Alansplodge (talk) 08:36, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

You really can't read the "story" of most medieval images unless you know what they are suppossed to mean already. You need someone to tell you that they mean something. And of course, you don't then need the image to lean the meaning - because you have been told it. The images were not in any true sense a "library" for the illiterate. You have to be able to read yourself to use a library, whether it is visual literacy or or textual literacy we mean. The meaning was pointed out by priests, thus reinforcing their role as intermediaries between the laity and the divine and building into the space itself the Catholic idea of the role of the church - represented by both the building and the priests. Paul B (talk) 09:30, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Images can act as mnemonics, helping the illiterate parishioner to remember the story they'd been told. --Nicknack009 (talk) 10:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Last time I was in the Sainte Chapelle it was cloudy, but I doubt that even in full sunlight I could distinguish the figures at the top.

Did really people walk in high places? I am remembering now that Hagia Sophia has an ample upper floor but in most Western churches the upper halls are limited to the choir (?) opposite of the apse

--Error (talk) 18:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

By the way, the Poor Man's Bible article that is already linked, along with Gothic art and Gothic architecture, and the sources listed in those articles (this is a pretty well-documented subject) give a good idea of how this kind of art was used. Maybe it seems unbelievable that they were used to teach people...but nevertheless, that's what happened. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:11, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I was doing a cycle tour of the (very Catholic) German Münsterland this summer, and for the first time noticed that many of the churches had illustrations of the Stations of the Cross along the side walls. I can easily imagine that these serve very much to fix the story and the interpretation of the events in the mind of someone who regularly is exposed to them in the context of a service that references them. It's quite a striking illustration, and it breaks the story into individual highlights. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't know about the Middle Ages, but today Catholics in the Holy Week services form a small procession in the church following the priest with the cross, stopping at each of the Stations. At each one, the relevant text is said and people pray. So actually this Via Crucis is a good example of learning the faith by doing, and stations are usually at a comfortable height. Thanks for reminding me. --Error (talk) 18:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

As to the "library" idea, here is an older but possibly useful link:[7] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC)