Bill wrote: > >i thought the english expletive "bollocks!" was >associated with the hindmost part of the human anatomy >and hot air (i.e. "you're talking bollocks - speaking >from your rear-end"). was the knife normally carried >from behind?
Bill, here is a page from the Mary Rose Trust web site describing the ballocks (or bollocks) dagger similar to those found on the Mary Rose. Farther down the page is a rather humorous description of how political correctness started to creep into the language in the 19th c as the changed the name to kidnye dagger. http://www.maryrose.org/history/bollockknifr.pdf On the subject of whether the item in question is a stand or a dagger I have believed it to be a dagger from the outset, in fact a bollocks style dagger as those were most common in the 15th (and earlier) century. What suggests this to me are several things; 1) there is a portion of something protruding below the stool that is in line with what we see behind the lute. It's point suggests to me a dagger sheath. 2) The Bollocks Daggers was a long tapering type of blade, also suggested by the shape below the stool. 3) Anyone above the rank of commoner would have worn a dagger, and the people depicted in this engraving are decidedly not commoners by their dress and surroundings. 4) So far in this discussion no one has given evidence of a "lute stand" of any type in period. While it can be argued that the lutenist is not leaning on the table for several reasons, it was often seen in period iconography that players did in fact lean on tables. The artist has attempted to put in som! e perspective by making the lady with the harp smaller thus suggesting she is farther back and closer to the table which might obviate the lutenist leaning on it. That all having been said I still don't know why the player would leave the dagger where it is and if this was just license on the part of the artist. If it were me I would move the dagger out of the way so as not to damage the lute. I do this with belts just so the buckle won't scratch it. Daggers weren't always worn in front (if you've ever worn a long dagger or sword you know that this can be rather cumbersome). Sometimes, and you'll see this in much art of the period (a scene from the Tres Riche Heurs du Duc d'Berri comes to mind), a dagger is worn at the back, or between the loops of a belt pouch on the side or at the back. As to the stool itself, it is decidedly of the Italian style of turned, three legged stool (I have a friend who makes these using a treadle lathe he also built and I believe someone posted his url here). But neither he nor I have ever encountered such a stool that had a specific piece built on or otherwise attached to support a lute. There have been examples of these stool with backs, and I have seen one example that actually had arms as near as I can tell (a photo from an English manor house done in 1910) but the chair is so far at the back of the picture it's difficult to tell exactly. Ok, so that went on way too long. Thank you all who answered. This was a lively discussion and I appreciate all the comments. Regards, Craig ___________________________________________________________ $0 Web Hosting with up to 200MB web space, 1000 MB Transfer 10 Personalized POP and Web E-mail Accounts, and much more. Signup at www.doteasy.com To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
