Re: Re: Elizabethan pieces for gov. figures.
Jon wrote: I agree with you in general, but might have a few nits to pick. There are specific titles in the USA for someone when he is in his official capacity (as you have said). No hereditary or personal titles. When the judge is on the bench you address him as your Honor, but on the golf course you can refer to him as a*e. I don't think we have the title right honorable in the US, I think it is a British term of address for elected members of Parliament. I don't think anyone but a close friend or someone looking for trouble is going to call a judge a*e anywhere anytime. And the terms Honourable and Right Honourable are bestwoed in this country. It's not limited to Great Britain. Go ask a judge. We also use the title Esquire for lawyers. Once they've graduated and are given their JD (Doctor of Jurisprudence) they have earned the title Esquire and the right to add Esq. at the end of their signature. Never mind that an Esquire in the Middle Ages was someone in fealty to a landed noble. Like many things that got brought to this country by our forebears, this is just one more example that has been modernized. I don't know how this custom is used in England today. I suspect Esquire still denotes minor nobility but I'm not sure and I'll leave that to someone who really knows. The military salute started not as a gesture of respect but a gesture of peace. It goes back to the days of combat when the open right hand showed that the weapon wasn't there, and the raising of the visor made recognition possible. But over the many centuries it has changed. (And a side issue, the raising of the right hand to swear in court was a bit less noble, criminals were branded on the palm of the right hand, so raising it let the judge know if you were a previous offender). The salute derives from armoured knights in tournaments dating back as far as King Rene (who was the foremost proponent of the tournament) lifting the visor of their helm so whoever was presiding over the tournament could see their face. This was done as each entrant in the tournament came forward to the stands and was introduced. Try pretending you're raising a visor and you will have done the typical flat, open handed British salute. In the US that salute got modified to holding the hand more at an angle. It has varied from country to country and army to army. But that's it origin. It has nothing whatsoever to do with showing an open hand. That's where the handshake comes from, or so I've been told. That may be just another urban legend, I don't know for sure as I've never researched the origins of the handshake. I have however done a great deal of study of the Middle Ages and Renaissance, the cultures and customs of the various peoples over a period of 900 years and all over Europe. Close, but no cigar. The Army and Navy have different rules, but they are similar in principle. One salutes when reporting to an superior officer. In the Army one remains covered (hat on) indoors, so salutes his senior when reporting to him in his office. In the Navy one removes ones cover when reporting and does not salute. The effect is the same, the formal respect for the position. In the Army one salutes officers when meeting or passing them. On a Naval ship one doesn't, as the ship is busy. The most senior officer in the Navy is the captain of your ship, be he just a Lieutenant. On shipboard one salutes him the first time of the day one sees him, and that only applies to officers. The crew are considered to be on duty and busy all the time. I've now worked closely with two military organizations, The US Coast Guard (the USGC is not under the DoD, and used to be under DoT in order to be able perform actions outside the 12 mile limit that would be construed an act of war by the Navy. It's now under DHS instead of DoT.) and the US Army and I can tell you that you incorrect. No one in the Army, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard, or the other two uniformed services (I'll let you guess what they are) in the US will wear their cover indoors. Only the Marines are known for and allowed to wear a cover indoors. Otherwise it just isn't done. And no one of those services salutes indoors (see exceptions below). It isn't done. It's not proper protocol. Life on shipboard is, as you say decidedly different from that on land, and the rules are different as a result. But the rest of your supposition above is just incorrect. As for saluting indoors, the only time this is done is if you're reporting to a senior officer or going to pay call (and I don't think they have the latter anymore what with direct deposit being so popular and convenient). The junior always initiates the salute, and holds it until it is returned. This is true for all the uniformed services, again though depending on where the two people are, i.e. indoors or outdoors or reporting. Except for one circumstance. If a private wearing the blue ribbon with a circle of five stars
FW: Re: Elizabethan pieces for gov. figures.
We also use the title Esquire for lawyers. Once they've graduated and are given their JD (Doctor of Jurisprudence) they have earned the title Esquire and the right to add Esq. at the end of their signature. Never mind that an Esquire in the Middle Ages was someone in fealty to a landed noble. Like many things that got brought to this country by our forebears, this is just one more example that has been modernized. I don't know how this custom is used in England today. I suspect Esquire still denotes minor nobility but I'm not sure and I'll leave that to someone who really knows. esquire: (es-kwir') (O.F. escuyer, L. scutarius, from scutum, shield), n. The armour-bearer or attendant on a knight, a squire; a title of dignity next in degree below a knight; a title properly belonging to the eldest sons of baronets and the younger sons of noblemen, and to officers of the king's courts, barristers, justices of the peace etc., but commonly given to all professional men, and used as a complimentary adjunct to a person's name in the addresses of letters. n.t. To attend upon as an escort: to dignify with the title of esquire. New English Dictionary (Mar.1932) Ron (UK)
Re: Re: Elizabethan pieces for gov. figures.
Craig, I'll keep this short because on the whole I agree with you. The details of the origin of the salute are a bit vague, the Navy never had a visor to raise. And the right hand has always been the dangerous hand, even if the left is called sinister. The tradition of raising the right hand to swear in court came from the habit of branding felons on the right hand, therebye giving the judge knowledge of previous convictions which we no longer allow. I have called a number of judges a**h*le on the golf course. And I've had the same term used back at me. And the use of the title Esquire isn't mandated for lawyers, or JD's,(that is an advanced degree in the law). The only ones that seem to use it are the ambulance chasers. And just in case this seems to be an anti-lawyer diatribe my son is a lawyer and law professor - and I was pre-law and had a 99th percentile in the Law Boards (the only classmate better than mine is now a Federal Judge in Pennsylvania). I was accepted at Harvard Law, but chose the Navy and other things. I don't know of any juristiction in the US where a judge would be called Right Honorable, but then that might apply to jurisdictions where the judge is elected rather than appointed, and that is a matter of the individual states. The senior judicial officials of the United States are the justices of the Supreme Court, and they are addressed as Mr./Ms. Justice so and so. Even the Chief Justice has the same address, he/she is the Chief Justice of the U.S., not of the Supreme Court. On that court he is one of nine, and addressed that way. I apologise to all for my long message, I credit it to too many hours of drinking beer while practicing the thumb under - a boring thing to do. And I apologise to Craig for any appearance of disagreement when it was only a mild bit of nit picking. And again to all for this long answer, but I owed it to Craig. We do agree, but I have that small advantage that I know all these bastards that you read about (and they are perfectly nice people). Don Rumsfeld knocked me flat on my butt in 1953 when the freshmen 150s scrimmaged the Varsity. I'll not go further into names. Best, Jon
Re: Re: Elizabethan pieces for gov. figures.
Ron, Let us recast that, and in the US a lawyer doesn't get a JD on graduation, he gets a Bachelor of Law. If we take the definition you have used from the NED then we could consider the Esquir to be a sycophant, the shield carrier and aromor bearer. Let's us fight, I'll hold your coat. That is an unreasonable statement on my part, I'm well aware of the profession (which in the US has become a business rather than a profession, since the Courts allowed the venal advertising by law firms about thirty years ago). I majored in Jurisprudence in college, and intended to go to law school - but the military got in the way. My son was the editor of the Law Journal (the number one student) at the Univ. of Minnesota Law School, and is currently a law professor after practicing for five years - and does not append Esq. to his name. So this isn't a pick-off. The claim of the title is an attempt to legitimize a profession that was once noble in defending rights within the framework of the courts of the kings, but has now become just another business advertising for clients. Best, Jon
Re: Elizabethan pieces for gov. figures.
The expression Esquire in British usage came to mean gentleman in the sense of someone who does not need to work for a living and thence someone who moves in the circles of those who are of the gentlemanly class. I suppose lawyers, who are as a class the most incurable of workaholics, appropriated Esquire to signify their identification with the moneyed classes that made up their clientele. Modern American lawyers use it for the usual reason that modern American lawyers use archaic expressions: they don't know what it means. Don't get me started. My law degree, from the University of California at Los Angeles, says Juris Doctor. This is typical. JD is always understood to mean law school graduate. I've never seen Bachelor of Law, but I can't say that no law school awards such a degree. Howard Posner
Re: Re: Elizabethan pieces for gov. figures.
Youth has always rebelled against whatever establishment they've grown up with. I did it during the 60s. My parents did it thirty years prior. It's the nature of youth and it is often with strong feelings of alienation because of youth's need to prove itself to their elders. I'm not sure it's justifiable, but it is often inevitible. Craig Ain't youth wonderful? You know it all and finally realise just how wrong those old farts are. Well said, it has been the nature of youth in all recorded history. The only problem is when the youth never grow up and realise that they are now the old farts. Life is a dynamic, and growth is the major feature of it. Some grow to the left politically, and some to the right (and there may be a very few who were correct from birth, but as I don't know what correct is I can't identify them). Too many move further to their particular side for the reasons you state, if the center moves your way then you have to move futher to the wing to retain your self image as a rebel. I have a great respect for one man, a family friend, who never did that. Norman Thomas was a Socialist candidate for President in the early twenties. He was reviled. In the fifties when I went to Princeton he confided to my mother I'm a Socialist, but I'm awfully glad I went to Princeton. But that is a side bar (which I've sent to his grandson, a journalist at NewsWeek magazine). The other comment was the real point. He said everything I advocated in 1920 is now in Mr. Eisenhower's platform. He saw what needed to be, and when it came to pass he didn't see a necessity to bend it further. That was a man who grew without changing, and that was his growth. Best, Jon
Re: Re: Elizabethan pieces for gov. figures.
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004, Roman Turovsky wrote: In the States no politician would ever confess to loving classical music, especially pre-election. Occasionally after many years in their office they divulge that vice, but this is extremely rare. Mrs. Bush is known for her active appreciation of fine literature (Dostoevsky, in particular), holding forums and such at the White House and refusing to let them become political platforms. And Condoleeza Rice is an accomplished classical pianist. It's one thing to denegrate someone or something if what you're saying is true, but Roman has the annoying habit of simply being nasty regardless of whether he has the facts, and with no regard for the truth. I have to defend Roman on this one. Ms. Rice isn't a politician seeking election, and Mrs. Bush isn't either. It is a shame, but the politico seeking election must appeal to the least common denomator, at least that is the conventional wisdom among them. I would like to see a candidate who didn't know the latest Grammy garbage, but the electorate has become so egalitarian that it might be fatal. I think Roman is speaking of practical electoral politics rather than the actuality of musical taste within the several administrations. Best, Jon
Re: Re: Elizabethan pieces for gov. figures.
Craig, I agree with you in general, but might have a few nits to pick. There are specific titles in the USA for someone when he is in his official capacity (as you have said). No hereditary or personal titles. When the judge is on the bench you address him as your Honor, but on the golf course you can refer to him as a**h*le. I don't think we have the title right honorable in the US, I think it is a British term of address for elected members of Parliament. But that is minor, as is the rest of this message. The military salute started not as a gesture of respect but a gesture of peace. It goes back to the days of combat when the open right hand showed that the weapon wasn't there, and the raising of the visor made recognition possible. But over the many centuries it has changed. (And a side issue, the raising of the right hand to swear in court was a bit less noble, criminals were branded on the palm of the right hand, so raising it let the judge know if you were a previous offender). The snappy military salute we know today was once a tug of the forelock in the old Navys. Look to the paintings of military ceremonys of only a century or so ago and you'll not see that salute. The salute was the presentation (offer) of arms, or in the old Navy a touch of the hat (or tug of the forelock for the common seaman). Now to the traditions of today in the military. Military Saluting - Well, you're in the Army now, and as such you have a chain of command to follow and certain rules. This is not servility as such, but is in fact a matter of both discipline and respect. Those in rank above you who are officers (non-comms and enlisted are not saluted) are called your superiors because they are superior in rank and as such must, buy the rules of military conduct (anyone's military, not just America's) you will salute them under the appropriate circumstances. Btw, there are circumstances where you do not have to salute an officer such as indoors, or in the No Hat, No Salute zone in the outdoor common area of the Pentagon. Close, but no cigar. The Army and Navy have different rules, but they are similar in principle. One salutes when reporting to an superior officer. In the Army one remains covered (hat on) indoors, so salutes his senior when reporting to him in his office. In the Navy one removes ones cover when reporting and does not salute. The effect is the same, the formal respect for the position. In the Army one salutes officers when meeting or passing them. On a Naval ship one doesn't, as the ship is busy. The most senior officer in the Navy is the captain of your ship, be he just a Lieutenant. On shipboard one salutes him the first time of the day one sees him, and that only applies to officers. The crew are considered to be on duty and busy all the time. The junior always initiates the salute, and holds it until it is returned. Except for one circumstance. If a private wearing the blue ribbon with a circle of five stars (the Medal of Honor) approaches a General with five stars on his shoulder, it is the General's obligation to initiate the salute. This may explain a bit of the protocol, it isn't a fixed social ranking, it is a ranking of the office. BTW, there is another Navy tradition about the cover. It must be removed indoors (defined as a personal space). There is a ship's bell behind the bar at every Naval officer's club, and if the bartender spots an officer entering without removing his cover he rings it, and the officer is obligated to buy the bar. Sounds silly, but these traditions of respect are part and parcel of our civility. An Admiral can't walk into the Officer's bar and claim privilege, he must remove his hat and be among the rest of the commissioned seamen. And an Admiral taking passage on a ship has to get out of the way of a common seaman performing his duty (although the seaman might be well advised not to push the issue). And your comment as to the bowing to the audience, that is just good manners. A bow isn't servile, it is an acknowlegement of applause, as you say. The Russians have a tradition that the honoree applauds while he is being applauded. He isn't applauding himself, no matter how it may look to us. He is making a thank you in the form of manners of his people. The Elizabethans had hereditory nobility, we have a seniority of achievement. I can't consider bowing to another's achievment to be servile, after all he may have to bow to mine. If I am captain of a ship and enter a courtroom I should refer to the judge as your honor, and if he comes aboard my ship he should refer to me as captain. In all other circumstances we can just say Mr.. And I may point out another difference between the traditions of the Navy and the Army. Only the captain is referred to by position, none are referred to by rank on shipboard. All officers, no matter their rank, are called Mister XXX. Wow, that was a long one that will bore the hell out of the list, but you started it (actually
Re: Elizabethan pieces for gov. figures.
May I add to Gordon's comments on sponsorship. Not from the courts of Europe and their musicians, but from the precincts of Ireland. If there is a god of the harpist (the traditional, not the orchestral) it is Turlough O'Carolan (also transliterated Turloch Carolan). His time was 1670 to 1738, and he became blind from small pox at eighteen years, and took up the harp then. As he took up the instrument late he was never considered more than an adequate harpist but he was a prolific composer (and looking at, and playing, his works I think he might have been more than adequate). In the style of the day he roamed Ireland as an entertainer and teacher, supported by the big houses. He had a talent for improvisation and a great many of his pieces are called Planxty, that being a dedication to his host, or the lady of his host. So when I play Planxty George Brabazon I am playing an approximation of the piece he improvised in the house of George Brabazon. I say an approximation as none of his compositions were written down, he being blind. They were transcribed after the fact by others to whom he had taught them. Even Mozart made a comment on his Poor Irish Boy, a very simple melody on the whistle, but an interesting composition if played with harmony. My point, in this digression, being that the relationship between musician and sponsor was a symbiosis. In those days there was a lot more of that as there was less of an economy. The musician couldn't make a CD and sell it to the populace, he had to depend on those who could feed him as he neither grew grain nor raised beef. A time of transition from the strict estates of medieval times - the peasant, the military and the clergy - to the time of artisans and traders and artists, along with the traditional producers, protectors and shamans - and thence to our modern culture of general consumption of the arts, when we have enough production to spare. (And let none of this suggest that I concur with the current public definition of what is valuable art - but that is both the value and the curse of a free market in the arts). Perhaps if one of you could get P. Diddy interested in promoting the lute we might again have music on the airwaves, but I have my doubts. Best, Jon - Original Message - From: Gordon J. Callon [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 11:46 PM Subject: Re: Elizabethan pieces for gov. figures. Regarding the titles of pieces that are addressing the names of various nobility: I assume that some such titles are intended to be simple literal descriptions. Many surviving dances and other pieces were originally composed for various masques and other entertainments that occupied much of the nobility's time and resources. (In modern equivalent values, The Triumph of Peace cost about 6.5 million pounds [U.K.]!) Hence, a dance described as So-and-so's Galliard may simply infer that the dance was composed for a courtly entertainment sponsered by So-and-so. Various examples (for consort rather than lute alone) are in Sabol, Four Hundred Songs Dances from the Stuart Masque, for example: nos. 146-148 (pp. 240-241), described as The First of My Lord Essex, etc. Sabol states that these are dances from Jonson's _Hymenaei_, written for the marriage of Robert Devereux, third Earl of Essex, and Lady Frances Howard (p. 582). Another is no. 213 (pp. 294-295), Robert Johnson's Lady Hatton's Almain possibly for an entertainment given by Lady Elizabeth Hatton (p. 593). The instrumental versions of The Earl of Essex Galliard [no connection with the above mentioned dances] are, of course, variants of the song Can she excuse my wrongs (Bk I no 5). Poulton, John Dowland (pp. 224-230), suggests that the poem of Can she... that Dowland set for the song was written by Robert Devereux, Earl of Essex, and that is where Dowland derived the name for the instrumental version in _Lachrimae or Seaven Teares_, as a reminder of the poem and the ill-fated career of Essex. So likewise, the name is a description of the piece's source, rather than any attempt to gain favour (especially as Essex was executed in 1601). GJC
Re: Elizabethan pieces for gov. figures.
What striking difference in taste are you referring to? Would you prefer striking difference in custom or striking difference in practice? I've little problem with those, and they would, perhaps, stir up less side-controversy than any reference to modern public taste. If you really think that ass-kissing went out with the renaissance, my friend, you'd better wake up and smell the coffee. You're very correct. Indeed, I've found cliques and silly politics even in pure physics research, and I've heard that medical research is just as bad. It is indelibly engraved into human nature. But that aside, I don't think those Elizabethan dedications were given in a spirit of greasy servility. True, in terms of modern taste the idea of Kerry's Pavane or Mr George W. Bush, His Galliard does seem a little over the top ;-) ;-) but those types of dedications were among the accepted ways in Dowland's day to curry favor with the Great and Good. Indeed, it was the accepted way to network with people who could advance your career. I'm not trying to formulate a criticism of Dowland -- I'm very sure he was of elevated taste, moral vision, intelligence, and sensitivity, without losing him humanity. But I do want to understand why such dedications were common in Elizibethan times, and non-existant today, and no one, so far, has addressed this question very directly. I harbor a suspicion that the underlying mechanism is more than just fashion (like baggy pants or blow-dried hair) but perhaps I am wrong.
Re: Elizabethan pieces for gov. figures.
There have been many good replies to my question. Thank you. My summary would be that such Elizabethan servility was part of the grease (oops, lubricant) that made the wheels of society turn. Similarities can be found in modern America: calling a judge Your Honor, military saluting, and bowing to an audience. And one could argue that America, with its customs of instant familiarity, may have gone downhill from Elizabethan times.
Re: Elizabethan pieces for gov. figures.
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004, Roman Turovsky wrote: In the States no politician would ever confess to loving classical music, especially pre-election. Occasionally after many years in their office they divulge that vice, but this is extremely rare. Mrs. Bush is known for her active appreciation of fine literature (Dostoevsky, in particular), holding forums and such at the White House and refusing to let them become political platforms.
Re: Re: Elizabethan pieces for gov. figures.
Herbert wrote: There have been many good replies to my question. Thank you. My summary would be that such Elizabethan servility was part of the grease (oops, lubricant) that made the wheels of society turn. Similarities can be found in modern America: calling a judge Your Honor, military saluting, and bowing to an audience. I think you're confusing obeisance with servility, and I get the feeling from your posts that you think such obeisance is somehow wrong. Let me address your three examples; Your Honour - This is simply recognizing an earned title. When a man or woman is made a judge they have earned the title The Right Honourable, hence they are called Your Honour. Using the correct title is not servility, but rather respect for the office and title the person has earned. Military Saluting - Well, you're in the Army now, and as such you have a chain of command to follow and certain rules. This is not servility as such, but is in fact a matter of both discipline and respect. Those in rank above you who are officers (non-comms and enlisted are not saluted) are called your superiors because they are superior in rank and as such must, buy the rules of military conduct (anyone's military, not just America's) you will salute them under the appropriate circumstances. Btw, there are circumstances where you do not have to salute an officer such as indoors, or in the No Hat, No Salute zone in the outdoor common area of the Pentagon. Bowing to an audience - Now here we have no shred of servility in my mind. This is in fact showing both gratitude and respect for those who have not only taken the time to listen to your performance, but who may be showing their appreciation by applauding your work. I don't consider this a servile act. And one could argue that America, with its customs of instant familiarity, may have gone downhill from Elizabethan times. Why are you picking on America? And why are you saying that being less servile is now suddenly somehow worse than the Elizabethan servility you decry in the initial posts? What have you got against America? Craig
Re: Re: Elizabethan pieces for gov. figures.
Herbert wrote: On Thu, 12 Feb 2004, Roman Turovsky wrote: In the States no politician would ever confess to loving classical music, especially pre-election. Occasionally after many years in their office they divulge that vice, but this is extremely rare. Mrs. Bush is known for her active appreciation of fine literature (Dostoevsky, in particular), holding forums and such at the White House and refusing to let them become political platforms. And Condoleeza Rice is an accomplished classical pianist. It's one thing to denegrate someone or something if what you're saying is true, but Roman has the annoying habit of simply being nasty regardless of whether he has the facts, and with no regard for the truth. Craig
Re: Re: Elizabethan pieces for gov. figures.
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Honor, military saluting, and bowing to an audience. ... that you think such obeisance is somehow wrong. I don't think it's in general wrong. But many youths rebel against it from justifiable and/or strong feelings of alienation, often injuring no one so much as themselves. Complex and sad.
Re: Re: Elizabethan pieces for gov. figures.
Herbert wrote: Honor, military saluting, and bowing to an audience. ... that you think such obeisance is somehow wrong. I don't think it's in general wrong. But many youths rebel against it from justifiable and/or strong feelings of alienation, often injuring no one so much as themselves. Complex and sad. Youth has always rebelled against whatever establishment they've grown up with. I did it during the 60s. My parents did it thirty years prior. It's the nature of youth and it is often with strong feelings of alienation because of youth's need to prove itself to their elders. I'm not sure it's justifiable, but it is often inevitible. Craig
Re: Elizabethan pieces for gov. figures.
Herbert wrote: I've noticed several Dowland pieces with titles honoring governmental and military figures (the Earl of Essex, a naval admiral, etc.). The dedications strike the modern taste as greasy -- none of us would compose a marching band piece (much less a lute piece) personally to a distant military or political figure. According to whose worldview? Just because it isn't done as frequently since the days of John Phillip Sousa doesn't mean it's entirely beyond the pale. Generalizations and assumptions are tricky things. How does one explain this striking difference in taste? Does a monarchist mindset produce such servility? Perhaps Dowland really knew and admired these people? I don't think it has anything to do with a Monarchist versus a Republican (I use the term here to refer to the US as a nation given that it is considered a Republic, not as a reference to modern political parties) mindset, nor do I see it as servility. Perhaps Dowland did, as you say, know and admire these people. Perhaps there's an even simpler explanation. Perhaps he was commissioned to write them. Or perhaps these people were patrons. Certainly this was often the case with later composers such as Turlough O'Carolan. Regards, Craig
Re: Elizabethan pieces for gov. figures.
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: According to whose worldview? Just because it isn't done as frequently since the days of John Phillip Sousa doesn't mean it's entirely beyond the pale. We seem to agree that it's done less frequently today than in the past, and that is enough for my purposes. Perhaps there's an even simpler explanation. Perhaps he was commissioned to write them. This may well be a correct explanation, but it does fully address my original question about the difference in taste: no modern military or political leader has compositions commissioned for him(self) in his official capacity.
Re: Elizabethan pieces for gov. figures.
According to whose worldview? Just because it isn't done as frequently since the days of John Phillip Sousa doesn't mean it's entirely beyond the pale. We seem to agree that it's done less frequently today than in the past, and that is enough for my purposes. You think dedicating a piece to the US President would be a good idea? He wouldn' know a lute from a toilet bowl.. RT __ Roman M. Turovsky http://turovsky.org http://polyhymnion.org
Re: Elizabethan pieces for gov. figures.
On Thursday, February 12, 2004, at 01:47 PM, Herbert Ward wrote: I've noticed several Dowland pieces with titles honoring governmental and military figures (the Earl of Essex, a naval admiral, etc.). The dedications strike the modern taste as greasy -- none of us would compose a marching band piece (much less a lute piece) personally to a distant military or political figure. How does one explain this striking difference in taste? Does a monarchist mindset produce such servility? Perhaps Dowland really knew and admired these people What striking difference in taste are you referring to? If you really think that ass-kissing went out with the renaissance, my friend, you'd better wake up and smell the coffee. But that aside, I don't think those Elizabethan dedications were given in a spirit of greasy servility. True, in terms of modern taste the idea of Kerry's Pavane or Mr George W. Bush, His Galliard does seem a little over the top ;-) ;-) but those types of dedications were among the accepted ways in Dowland's day to curry favor with the Great and Good. Indeed, it was the accepted way to network with people who could advance your career. DR
Re: Elizabethan pieces for gov. figures.
On Thursday, February 12, 2004, at 02:05 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: According to whose worldview? Just because it isn't done as frequently since the days of John Phillip Sousa doesn't mean it's entirely beyond the pale. I guess nowadays people have high schools named after them rather than galliards. DR
Re: Elizabethan pieces for gov. figures.
Am Don, 2004-02-12 um 21.33 schrieb Roman Turovsky: According to whose worldview? Just because it isn't done as frequently since the days of John Phillip Sousa doesn't mean it's entirely beyond the pale. We seem to agree that it's done less frequently today than in the past, and that is enough for my purposes. You think dedicating a piece to the US President would be a good idea? He wouldn' know a lute from a toilet bowl.. RT I wonder - he is such a clever person! No other american politician would be so popular giving the restrictions of freedom for the american people he achieved. Dedications may sound odd today but they are still in use. One wouldn't call a piece Mr. Bush's Midnight but would rather write a dedication as it was also popular in the renaissance. And it's rather unusual to adress a piece of music to a politician. Actually politicians doesn't seem to support music any longer ... Thomas -- Thomas Schall Niederhofheimer Weg 3 D-65843 Sulzbach 06196/74519 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.lautenist.de / www.tslaute.de/weiss --
Re: Elizabethan pieces for gov. figures.
According to whose worldview? Just because it isn't done as frequently since the days of John Phillip Sousa doesn't mean it's entirely beyond the pale. We seem to agree that it's done less frequently today than in the past, and that is enough for my purposes. You think dedicating a piece to the US President would be a good idea? He wouldn' know a lute from a toilet bowl.. RT I wonder - he is such a clever person! No other american politician would be so popular giving the restrictions of freedom for the american people he achieved. Dedications may sound odd today but they are still in use. One wouldn't call a piece Mr. Bush's Midnight but would rather write a dedication as it was also popular in the renaissance. And it's rather unusual to adress a piece of music to a politician. Actually politicians doesn't seem to support music any longer ... In the States no politician would ever confess to loving classical music, especially pre-election. Occasionally after many years in their office they divulge that vice, but this is extremely rare. RT __ Roman M. Turovsky http://turovsky.org http://polyhymnion.org
Re: Elizabethan pieces for gov. figures.
It seems to me that we often make the mistake of judging activities in other cultures as though they were taking place in out own. Remember, Elizabethan England was a police state - I think I would have spent most of my time saying things like, yes, Boss. A little toadying can certainly be forgiven. Joseph mayes From: Thomas Schall [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 12 Feb 2004 22:42:36 +0100 To: Lautenliste [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Elizabethan pieces for gov. figures. Am Don, 2004-02-12 um 21.33 schrieb Roman Turovsky: According to whose worldview? Just because it isn't done as frequently since the days of John Phillip Sousa doesn't mean it's entirely beyond the pale. We seem to agree that it's done less frequently today than in the past, and that is enough for my purposes. You think dedicating a piece to the US President would be a good idea? He wouldn' know a lute from a toilet bowl.. RT I wonder - he is such a clever person! No other american politician would be so popular giving the restrictions of freedom for the american people he achieved. Dedications may sound odd today but they are still in use. One wouldn't call a piece Mr. Bush's Midnight but would rather write a dedication as it was also popular in the renaissance. And it's rather unusual to adress a piece of music to a politician. Actually politicians doesn't seem to support music any longer ... Thomas -- Thomas Schall Niederhofheimer Weg 3 D-65843 Sulzbach 06196/74519 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.lautenist.de / www.tslaute.de/weiss --
Re: Elizabethan pieces for gov. figures.
Of course you are right, but it seems to be fact that until the world wars politics used music to demonstrate their support for culture. This now seems to have been become unpopular. On the other hand during election campaigns Rock stars are very much asked by politicians. Just something I'm thinking about in terms of society and culture ... Thomas Am Don, 2004-02-12 um 23.07 schrieb Joe Mayes: It seems to me that we often make the mistake of judging activities in other cultures as though they were taking place in out own. Remember, Elizabethan England was a police state - I think I would have spent most of my time saying things like, yes, Boss. A little toadying can certainly be forgiven. Joseph mayes From: Thomas Schall [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 12 Feb 2004 22:42:36 +0100 To: Lautenliste [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Elizabethan pieces for gov. figures. Am Don, 2004-02-12 um 21.33 schrieb Roman Turovsky: According to whose worldview? Just because it isn't done as frequently since the days of John Phillip Sousa doesn't mean it's entirely beyond the pale. We seem to agree that it's done less frequently today than in the past, and that is enough for my purposes. You think dedicating a piece to the US President would be a good idea? He wouldn' know a lute from a toilet bowl.. RT I wonder - he is such a clever person! No other american politician would be so popular giving the restrictions of freedom for the american people he achieved. Dedications may sound odd today but they are still in use. One wouldn't call a piece Mr. Bush's Midnight but would rather write a dedication as it was also popular in the renaissance. And it's rather unusual to adress a piece of music to a politician. Actually politicians doesn't seem to support music any longer ... Thomas -- Thomas Schall Niederhofheimer Weg 3 D-65843 Sulzbach 06196/74519 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.lautenist.de / www.tslaute.de/weiss -- -- Thomas Schall Niederhofheimer Weg 3 D-65843 Sulzbach 06196/74519 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.lautenist.de / www.tslaute.de/weiss --
Re: Elizabethan pieces for gov. figures.
Herbert Ward at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've noticed several Dowland pieces with titles honoring governmental and military figures (the Earl of Essex, a naval admiral, etc.). How does one explain this striking difference in taste? Does a monarchist mindset produce such servility? Perhaps Dowland really knew and admired these people? Their political rank as governmental figures as such was not as important as their inherited social rank as nobility (in any case, rank in government was almost always a result of social rank, since it was awkward, if not unacceptable, to have a minor knight giving orders to an earl or an earl giving orders to a duke). In 1600 (or 1500, or 1750) it was taken for granted that some people were better than others because of who they were and who their families were. The entire social system was invested in this belief, and servility was considered the natural order of things. The nobility had money and connections, and artists curried favor with them because their patronage was how artists made a living, quite literally as servants. Servants are, by definition, supposed to be servile; it's one of the qualifications for the job. Publications and manuscript collections are full of flowery dedications to nobles that say the composer and his music is unworthy of the dedicatee, but he hopes the dedicatee will nonetheless accept it as a measure of the composer's esteem, etc. It wasn't toadying or greasy. it was just the way things were done and if anyone gave it a second thought, they didn't do it out loud. Even Beethoven, who was known to hold forth on the worthlessness of inherited rank and privilege, wrote his share of such flowery, obsequious dedications. They were entirely conventional; anything else would have been considered rude. So the answer to your question of how to account for this difference in taste is that taste has little to do with it. The political and social reality has changed. Most of us are raised with the idea that everyone is equal. In Dowland's time, such an assertion might have been construed as treason. Howard Posner
Re: Elizabethan pieces for gov. figures.
So the answer to your question of how to account for this difference in taste is that taste has little to do with it. The political and social reality has changed. Most of us are raised with the idea that everyone is equal. In Dowland's time, such an assertion might have been construed as treason. Didn't Quakers professed such a treasonous belief? RT
Re: Elizabethan pieces for gov. figures.
Dear Herbert: The pieces in question were written at a time when professional musicians had patrons. The higher placed the patron/employer the greater the income. In Dowland's case he circulated around people who were high placed at court in an effort to get an appointment as one of the Queen's Lutenists, to no avail. Vance Wood. - Original Message - From: Herbert Ward [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 10:47 AM Subject: Elizabethan pieces for gov. figures. I've noticed several Dowland pieces with titles honoring governmental and military figures (the Earl of Essex, a naval admiral, etc.). The dedications strike the modern taste as greasy -- none of us would compose a marching band piece (much less a lute piece) personally to a distant military or political figure. How does one explain this striking difference in taste? Does a monarchist mindset produce such servility? Perhaps Dowland really knew and admired these people?
Re: Elizabethan pieces for gov. figures.
Yes - and they were obsessed therefore ... Although Howard's post is acurate as ever I'm not sure if I would like to follow him this time telling artists servile. If you read what has survived from them I'm very sure they were very self confident as artists and to a certain degree as intelectuals. Somehow I feel like such greasy dedications were just a matter of convention - they didn't think about it because it was a need to find a dedicatee and the more noble the better. Nevertheless the individal did not had the importance it has today and therefore artists of the renaissance would have seen their social and intellecutal role very different to what we are used to seeing it today. But there were circles of artists which really changed the world - the renaissance was no political or social development but a development of art and artists! Thomas Am Don, 2004-02-12 um 23.52 schrieb Roman Turovsky: So the answer to your question of how to account for this difference in taste is that taste has little to do with it. The political and social reality has changed. Most of us are raised with the idea that everyone is equal. In Dowland's time, such an assertion might have been construed as treason. Didn't Quakers professed such a treasonous belief? RT -- Thomas Schall Niederhofheimer Weg 3 D-65843 Sulzbach 06196/74519 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.lautenist.de / www.tslaute.de/weiss --
Re: Elizabethan pieces for gov. figures.
Roman Turovsky at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Most of us are raised with the idea that everyone is equal. In Dowland's time, such an assertion might have been construed as treason. Didn't Quakers professed such a treasonous belief? Something like it, and they drew a lot of heat for it. The Quaker movement began just about the time that Charles I was executed; in the early years of the Restoration, several thousand Quakers were imprisoned. HP
RE: Elizabethan pieces for gov. figures.
Thomas, On the other hand during election campaigns Rock stars are very much asked by politicians. True. In fact, Steven Stills performed to presumably warm up the audience for John Kerry in Phoenix about a week ago on primary day. Fortunately his gorgeous-sounding Martin guitar drowned out his voice most of the time Scott -Original Message- From: Thomas Schall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 3:25 PM To: Lautenliste Subject: Re: Elizabethan pieces for gov. figures. Of course you are right, but it seems to be fact that until the world wars politics used music to demonstrate their support for culture. This now seems to have been become unpopular. On the other hand during election campaigns Rock stars are very much asked by politicians. Just something I'm thinking about in terms of society and culture ... Thomas
Re: Elizabethan pieces for gov. figures.
On Thursday, February 12, 2004, at 06:32 PM, Thomas Schall wrote: Nevertheless the individal did not had the importance it has today and therefore artists of the renaissance would have seen their social and intellecutal role very different to what we are used to seeing it today. Well, yes and no. Consider if you were applying for a position on the personal staff of Prince Charles. Okay, you might not have to address him as Your Most High And Mighty Divine August Britannic Lordship or words to that effect (I don't think so, anyway), but if you had to send your resume to him personally, I bet the resume would be couched in very polite terms! There would be no question of greasy servility, but ven today there would have to be some recognition of his status as a prince. David R ;-)
Re: Elizabethan pieces for gov. figures.
A matter of manners as well as position. If you look at letters between peers (equals) of the 18th and 19th century you will see them signed with phrases like your humble and obediant servant (usually abbreviated). To view the conventions of the past with the eyes of the present is always a mistake. (I don't include such conventions as impaling or droit de signeur). In our age of equality I find myself called to my table at a restaurant by my first name, I don't consider the restaurant employees to be my inferiors, but I'd still prefer to be called Mr. Murphy in that situation. Yet younger people seem to like the impression of familiarity - oh tempore, oh mores. Best, Jon
Re: Elizabethan pieces for gov. figures.
Regarding the titles of pieces that are addressing the names of various nobility: I assume that some such titles are intended to be simple literal descriptions. Many surviving dances and other pieces were originally composed for various masques and other entertainments that occupied much of the nobility's time and resources. (In modern equivalent values, The Triumph of Peace cost about 6.5 million pounds [U.K.]!) Hence, a dance described as So-and-so's Galliard may simply infer that the dance was composed for a courtly entertainment sponsered by So-and-so. Various examples (for consort rather than lute alone) are in Sabol, Four Hundred Songs Dances from the Stuart Masque, for example: nos. 146-148 (pp. 240-241), described as The First of My Lord Essex, etc. Sabol states that these are dances from Jonson's _Hymenaei_, written for the marriage of Robert Devereux, third Earl of Essex, and Lady Frances Howard (p. 582). Another is no. 213 (pp. 294-295), Robert Johnson's Lady Hatton's Almain possibly for an entertainment given by Lady Elizabeth Hatton (p. 593). The instrumental versions of The Earl of Essex Galliard [no connection with the above mentioned dances] are, of course, variants of the song Can she excuse my wrongs (Bk I no 5). Poulton, John Dowland (pp. 224-230), suggests that the poem of Can she... that Dowland set for the song was written by Robert Devereux, Earl of Essex, and that is where Dowland derived the name for the instrumental version in _Lachrimae or Seaven Teares_, as a reminder of the poem and the ill-fated career of Essex. So likewise, the name is a description of the piece's source, rather than any attempt to gain favour (especially as Essex was executed in 1601). GJC
