April
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 17.0291 Friday, 7 April 2006 [1] From: Alan Jones <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 5 Apr 2006 20:13:42 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 17.0280 History of RINGS? [2] From: John Briggs <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 5 Apr 2006 21:35:36 +0100 Subj: Re: SHK 17.0280 History of RINGS? [3] From: Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 05 Apr 2006 19:00:58 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 17.0280 History of RINGS? [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Alan Jones <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 5 Apr 2006 20:13:42 +0100 Subject: 17.0280 History of RINGS? Comment: Re: SHK 17.0280 History of RINGS? Joseph Egert <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > >Colin Cox writes: > >The engagement ring is of Roman origin. The wedding ring of >Egyptian. The ring symbolized eternal love and the placement on the >third finger was from the belief that a vein ran from there to the >heart. > > >Wasn't it the fourth finger? (See SHK 17.0073 for details.) If the "first finger" is the one next to the thumb, the "ring finger" should be the third, next to the little finger; but people seem usually to say "fourth". Compare the finger notation of piano music, where nowadays 1 means thumb and so on to 5 for the little finger, but in my youth + was used for the thumb, and the little finger was 4. Alan Jones [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Briggs <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 5 Apr 2006 21:35:36 +0100 Subject: 17.0280 History of RINGS? Comment: Re: SHK 17.0280 History of RINGS? Joseph Egert wrote: >Colin Cox writes: > >The engagement ring is of Roman origin. The wedding ring of >Egyptian. The ring symbolized eternal love and the placement on the >third finger was from the belief that a vein ran from there to the >heart. > >Wasn't it the fourth finger? (See SHK 17.0073 for details.) That would be counting the thumb as the first finger. (See SHK 17.0101 for details.) John Briggs [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 05 Apr 2006 19:00:58 -0400 Subject: 17.0280 History of RINGS? Comment: Re: SHK 17.0280 History of RINGS? >>The engagement ring is of Roman origin. The wedding ring of >>Egyptian. The ring symbolized eternal love and the placement on the >>third finger was from the belief that a vein ran from there to the >>heart. > >Wasn't it the fourth finger? It all depends on what a finger is. It is the fourth metacarpal, which (not counting the thumb) is the third finger. As for the history, the quote is approximately correct. More precisely, the first known exchange of finger rings as objects of love was in Egypt c.2800BC, but it is not clear that they were wedding rings as opposed to engagement rings, or that the distinction made sense in that culture. According to Plautus and Pliny the Elder, rings were given as betrothal gifts by Roman bridegrooms to symbolize the commitment. See O.Gad, Wedding Rings 19-20 (Stewart, Tabori & Chang 2004). But Roman betrothals were more formal than modern engagements and carried with them certain legal rights and obligations. _______________________________________________________________ S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List Hardy M. Cook,This email 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.
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 17.0290 Friday, 7 April 2006 From: Terence Hawkes <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 6 Apr 2006 10:57:50 +0100 Subject: Hotspur Glendower does not speak English with a Welsh accent. He was 'train'd up in the English court'. He is no Fluellen. What he also speaks is of course the Welsh language. This scene raises issues of a crucial nature in respect of the entity that we call 'Britain', and the role of English within in it. They remain to this day. T. Hawkes _______________________________________________________________ S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List Hardy M. Cook,This email 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.
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 17.0289 Friday, 7 April 2006 [1] From: David Evett <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 5 Apr 2006 15:08:49 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 17.0278 Monsieur La Far [2] From: Grant Smith <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 5 Apr 2006 17:32:58 -0700 Subj: Re: SHK 17.0278 Monsieur La Far [3] From: Stephanie Kydd <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 6 Apr 2006 08:08:03 -0700 (PDT) Subj: RE: Significance of the name "La Far" in KL 4.3.8, posted by Dennis Taylor [1]----------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Evett <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 5 Apr 2006 15:08:49 -0400 Subject: 17.0278 Monsieur La Far Comment: Re: SHK 17.0278 Monsieur La Far For what it is worth, none of the Marechals de France in the Wikipedia list, from the establishment of the office in 1180 through 1605 and beyond, bore that name. David Evett [2]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Grant Smith <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 5 Apr 2006 17:32:58 -0700 Subject: 17.0278 Monsieur La Far Comment: Re: SHK 17.0278 Monsieur La Far Dennis Taylor <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > >Is there any significance to the name, Monsieur La Far (KLear 4.3.8)? I can't find a parallel to any historical personage. So my guess would be that Shakespeare may be doing a little wordplay here with the French word for wax, "fart," and/or the English word for iron, "fer." If the idea of iron is suggested, the meaning is appropriately ironical to an English audience for a French soldier. At the same time, the pronunciation would sound like the French word for wax, and so the "real meaning" would mock the soldier's prospects in war. Could Shakespeare's aural imagination have been that lively?! Of course, the French king is a good guy, and so is spared the embarrassment of defeat. Grant Smith [3]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephanie Kydd <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Thursday, 6 Apr 2006 08:08:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: RE: Significance of the name "La Far" in KL 4.3.8, posted by Dennis Taylor RE: Significance of the name "La Far" in KL 4.3.8, posted by Dennis Taylor Shakespeare usually doesn't choose a name arbitrarily (even one used in passing), so there is some significance. I can't claim with any certainty what it is, but I offer the following conjectures: (1) 'lafar' is a recognized variant of 'l'affaire' ('A Glossary of Lingua Franca', http://www.uwm.edu/~corre/franca/go.html); the English word 'affair' (derived from the French) is 'a military 'action' or engagement of undefined character' (OED), which makes 'La Far' an apt name for a French marshal; (2) There may be simple play on the English word 'far', meaning that the troop support is remote. - Stephie KyddThis email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. _______________________________________________________________ S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List Hardy M. Cook,This email 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.
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 17.0288 Friday, 7 April 2006 From: David Siar <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 5 Apr 2006 16:55:54 -0400 Subject: New Issue of Early Modern Culture The new issue of Early Modern Culture is now on line at <http:// eserver.org/emc/1-5/issue5.html>. Here is the index: Christian Thorne: "The Grassy-Green Sea" Christopher Kendrick: Response Special Cluster on Early Modern Women Maureen Quilligan: "When Women Ruled the World: The Glorious Sixteenth Century" Margaret Ferguson: "Conning the 'Overseers': Women's Illicit Work in Behn's 'The Adventure of the Black Lady'" Jill P. Ingram: "A Case for Credit: Isabella Whitney's 'Wyll and Testament' and the Mock Testament Tradition" Julie Crawford "Women (Authors) on Top" (A Response to Quilligan, Ferguson, and Ingram) The Electronic Seminar Maureen Quilligan: Response to Julie Crawford Julie Crawford: Response to Maureen Quilligan's Response Jill P. Ingram: Response to Julie Crawford Julie Crawford: Response to Jill P. Ingram's Response Thanks for your attention, David Siar and Crystal Bartolovich, eds. _______________________________________________________________ S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List Hardy M. Cook,This email 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.
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 17.0287 Friday, 7 April 2006 From: Mary Coy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Date: Wednesday, 05 Apr 2006 14:30:45 -0400 Subject: Rushes on the Elizabethan Stage Is there any evidence of rushes being used as a floor covering on the Elizabethan stage? It seems very impractical. Jean Howard on page 1194 in the Norton edition glosses "rushes" to indicate that they did use them but I cannot find any evidence. Because of the Globe's difficulty with them on the stage in the 1998 HENRY V I'm guessing that the only place they may have been in the theater was on the gallery and pit floors. _______________________________________________________________ S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List Hardy M. Cook,This email 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.