The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 17.0073 Sunday, 26 February 2006
[1] From: Donald Bloom <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Monday, 20 Feb 2006 10:00:56 -0600
Subj: RE: SHK 17.0055 A Wedding Ring Question
[2] From: Larry Weiss <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Monday, 20 Feb 2006 14:39:37 -0500
Subj: Re: SHK 17.0055 A Wedding Ring Question
[3] From: Jack Heller <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Monday, 20 Feb 2006 16:27:42 -0500 (EST)
Subj: Re: SHK 17.0055 A Wedding Ring Question
[4] From: Joseph Egert <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Friday, 24 Feb 2006 19:43:44 +0000
Subj: RE: SHK 17.0041 A Wedding Ring Question
[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Donald Bloom <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Monday, 20 Feb 2006 10:00:56 -0600
Subject: 17.0055 A Wedding Ring Question
Comment: RE: SHK 17.0055 A Wedding Ring Question
Let me second John Briggs's very sensible response:
>"Don't get too excited - Shakespeare was no doubt aware that in many
>European countries it was the custom for bride and bridegroom to present
>each other mutually with rings as a pledge of fidelity (the origin of
>the modern custom, mostly unknown in England until the late twentieth
>century."
The bestowal of rings-like other marriage rituals-has varied a great
deal from century to century, region to region, and class to class. I
was sure I had seen other references, but could only find one (double
ring ceremonies in 14th century Italy). In my own defense, I only had
time for a cursory look at very limited resources. If it's important I
could try harder (finals are over for another term).
We have, however, a very complex issue here:
1) Whether the ring business in MOV is supposed to represent a formal
marital ceremony or merely a loving exchange between two parts of a
united couple. (I would say the latter)
2) What the common custom was in 16th Century England (regardless of the
Book of Common Prayer).
3) What the common custom was in 16th Century Venice.
Unless this matter is very important, I'd leave it alone. Looks like a
Slough of Despond (or gator-infested swamp) to me.
Cheers,
don
[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Larry Weiss <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Monday, 20 Feb 2006 14:39:37 -0500
Subject: 17.0055 A Wedding Ring Question
Comment: Re: SHK 17.0055 A Wedding Ring Question
Anyone interested in the history and customs of wedding rings (and
betrothal rings) would do well to get a copy of "Wedding Rings" by Osnat
Gad , published by Stewart, Tabori & Chang. This charming little book
is chock full of fascinating facts, beautiful pictures and appropriate
literary quotations, including from WS.
In the interest of full disclosure, the author is my wife.
[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jack Heller <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Monday, 20 Feb 2006 16:27:42 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 17.0055 A Wedding Ring Question
Comment: Re: SHK 17.0055 A Wedding Ring Question
I am grateful for the replies to my wedding ring inquiry. It makes me
think of an idea for a book. I have a collection by Philip Schaff of the
creedal statements of Christendom compiled through the twentieth
century. Perhaps a similar work is available Christian rituals across
time-baptism services, wedding services, the Eucharist from a variety of
Christian traditions. I find the 1559 Book of Common Prayer very useful
in my research, but I would like to be able to easily compare its
services with other contemporaneous practices.
Jack Heller
[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joseph Egert <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Friday, 24 Feb 2006 19:43:44 +0000
Subject: 17.0041 A Wedding Ring Question
Comment: RE: SHK 17.0041 A Wedding Ring Question
Jack Heller raises an interesting issue in the subarration of Portia,
Nerissa, Leah, and Jessica by their respective betrothed. As already
noted, in the England of the period the ring gift was ordinarily
one-way, man-to-woman, reflecting the Biblical dominance of the male.
Henry Swinburne in his 17th C. TREATISE OF SPOUSALS identifies the Old
Testament's Tubal Cain as the ring's originator. Tubal fashioned an
iron/adamant ring for his son to use as spousal lure, on Adam's advice.
In the MERCHANT Tubal's namesake is the first to alert the forlorn
Shylock of Jessica's disposal of her mother Leah's ring. Also of
interest, Portia's ring is a "golden hoop" (linking it to the golden
casket of false appearances) and not the durable iron/adamant ring of
Tubal Cain, symbolic of the marriage union's permanence.. Swinburne
fondly recounts the days of old when rings were restricted to the
nobility or were unmistakable signs of betrothal or marriage. He
grumbles at the youth of his own day, every "skipping Jack" and
"flirting Jill", donning ring and jewel, wed or unwed.
The formula for submission of body and wealth Portia uses to accompany
her initial ring gift to Bassanio is unmistakably one of formal
betrothal or even marriage, the church service being confirmatory. Yet
in offering him the ring, she has assumed the dominant male role, thus
belying her very words. Contemporary tracts never wearied of warning
young men like Bassanio against marrying up, to women of greater wealth
and power like Portia. The inevitable tensions would not bode well for
marital harmony. Bassanio et al are almost puppets in her hands. He
breaks the strings and gives way the ring, thus defying her (Old
Testament?) "commandment." Also of interest, at play's end Portia, using
Antonio as a mediator, does not directly place the ring on Bassanio's
fourth finger. Such mediation may be seen as weakening and undermining
the ring's validation and sanctification of the union.
Portia may even be seen as an early prototype for Prospero. Clearly she
is somehow mystically involved in bringing Antonio's three lost ships
home "safely to road." Anagogically, in Christian terms, I see these
three ships as the voyaging souls of Bassanio, Antonio, and even
Shylock, all undergoing perils that test and ultimately force them to
symbolically lose "life and living", only to be reborn (Portia as
midwife) to a new spiritual life of antinomian Christian grace. Portia,
the ultimate RingMaster has brought these lost souls home, safely to Rood.
Joe Egert
_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook,
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>
DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.
|
