2006

History of RINGS?

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.

Hotspur

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.

New Issue of Early Modern Culture

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.

Monsieur La Far

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 Kydd
This 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.

Rushes on the Elizabethan Stage

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.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.