Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2023 November 20

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

November 20

Shakespeare as actor

I've been doing a bit on the Guildhall of St George in King's Lynn. That threw up this fascinating paper by a Professor Matthew Woodcock of the University of East Anglia, [1] which suggests that Shakespeare performed at the Guildhall in the 1590s. I'm interested in reading further around this, and would be very grateful for any pointers to further scholarly discussion of WS's career as an actor, particularly if it covers King's Lynn. Thanks in anticipation. KJP1 (talk) 06:45, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Our article William Shakespeare characterizes him as "an English playwright, poet and actor" and has some further information about him as an actor, including that "[t]he First Folio of 1623 ... lists Shakespeare as one of 'the Principal Actors in all these Plays' ". Little is known with certainty. It is conceivable that Shakespeare began his theatrical career as actor before becoming a playwright; we just don't know.  --Lambiam 11:21, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Actually a reasonable amount is known. It is in fact almost universally assumed (except by Baconians etc) that WS was an actor before he began to write. Life of William Shakespeare is the better bet, or one of the very many book bios. The literature will be absolutely vast, & not that much new in the way of actual documentation has emerged in the last century, so out of copyright books may be useful. But no doubt that paper has what is known. Generally he was London-based, but companies quite often toured in the provinces (in the south anyway), especially during times of plague or municipal hostility in the capital. Slightly contrary to what Guildhall of St George says, he almost certainly performed in the existing large hall at Hampton Court Palace several times, probably on the existing dias, around Xmas and New Year, when his company made extended stays. Johnbod (talk) 03:31, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

The claim is that it's the only surviving theatre, not a hall temporarily used as one. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:29, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

The hall was not a purpose-built theatre, and though our article concentrates on that, it was no doubt used for many other civic purposes. Johnbod (talk) 04:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

I think that's right. But the information's very helpful. My question was less - was Shakespeare an actor? as I knew that he was - and more - where can I find scholarly discussion of his career as an actor? And for this, there are some useful suggestions. KJP1 (talk) 07:43, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

p.s. This, for example, would be very interesting, if I could access JStor. KJP1 (talk)

Last time I looked they were still doing a limited number of free items per month if you register. Or there's the Wikipedia Library. The Peter Ackroyd biography is reasonably cheap s/h, and Soul of the Age: The Life, Mind and World of William Shakespeare by Sir Jonathan Bate very cheap, as is the Bill Bryson. Bate is certainly scholarly, & Ackroyd I think at least "reliable". Johnbod (talk) 18:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Johnbod: I see a mismatch between "Actually a reasonable amount is known." and "It is in fact almost universally assumed ... that WS was an actor ...". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:00, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, and there's a huge amount of writing covering that. Johnbod (talk) 04:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, is it known, or merely assumed, that he was an actor before he began to write? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 15:11, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

There is some evidence to suggest that Shakespeare may have performed in the Great Hall of Rufford Old Hall in Lancashire, in about 1580. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:18, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

"Some evidence", "suggest", "may have performed" - these all seem to add up to something somewhat south of "known". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:25, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

There are a number of slightly later statements, including the listing in the First Folio, that he acted, and even some of his roles are mentioned. But I don't think any dates or places. That's all there is. Take it or leave it. Johnbod (talk) 04:55, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Yep, 24-hour worldwide satellite news wasn't around in 1580. Mr Shakespeare himself wasn't even newsworthy until perhaps the late 17th century? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:42, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Hand & Pen

On the old A30, now the B3174, between Honiton and Exeter, is a settlement called Hand & Pen. What is the origin of the name? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 20:09, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

It is listed in this book. Not having read this in detail I gather that they claim that the pen bit is of Celtic origin and means "head". This is promised to have something but google won't show me any content... (My google search keywords are "Hand and Pen" and "Whimple"). --Wrongfilter (talk) 20:35, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Pen, meaning head or hill, is a common place-name element in Cornwall & Devon. The second book you link is "From Trackway to Turnpike: An Illustration from East Devon" by Gilbert Sheldon. I can get a few snippets. "It was on horseback that John Gay and his two companions travelled from London to Exeter in 1716. They broke their journey at Hartley Row and at Stock[...] they were overtaken by a storm of rain, from which they took shelter at the Hand and Pen by the Whimple crossroads, where they found a 'a civil host',

Upon whose sign this courteous motto stands,

This is the ancient hand, and eke the pen;

Here is for horses hay, and meat for men.'"

That is a quotation from "A Journey to Exeter" by John Gay. So that suggests it was a pub name. But why would the pub have that name? It's not one I've heard of before. BTW, I was googling exactly the same terms as you before I posted here, and didn't get either of those books! DuncanHill (talk) 22:04, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I found a couple of other former "Hand and Pen" pubs, both of them suggesting that it was an establisment frequented by scriveners. There was one in Fleet Street, London, [2] and one in Farnham [3]. Pub names#Trades, tools and products has more names on an occupational theme. Alansplodge (talk) 22:40, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

For anyone outside Great Britain and Ireland who may be puzzled; a settlement being named after a pub or inn is uncommon but not unknown in these islands. Usually the establishment was built at a significant spot for travellers, such as a crossroads, and the settlement later grew up around it. Other instances are Horse and Jockey in Ireland, and Swiss Cottage in London.

I wonder how often this has happened in other countries, and if there is scope for an article about settlements so named? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.241.161.192 (talk) 23:04, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Also Nelson, Lancashire, a town of 30,000 people named after the Nelson Inn in the 19th century. Alansplodge (talk) 10:09, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm American, but - oddly enough - my town derives its name from a tavern that predated the large-scale settlement of the area. User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:16, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

As I suspected, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania (pop. 22K, plus a shopping mall I've heard of on the other side of the world) is named for the 18th-century King of Prussia Inn. In London Elephant and Castle is another example. Johnbod (talk) 14:19, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

@Alansplodge: This Hand and Pen seems an unlikely spot for a scrivener. DuncanHill (talk) 13:04, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

This is true, let alone a community of scriveners able to justify their own pub. The internet is silent on the issue; I can only suggest that a literate landlord had a sideline in writing letters for the local yokelry, but who knows? Alansplodge (talk) 22:13, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Liechtenstein and the Swiss franc

Hi. The US government can be said to have "100% control" over the US dollar.

East Timor's official currency is also the US dollar, but East Timor can be said to have "0% control" over the US dollar.

Monaco uses the Euro, but is not an Eurozone member state. Instead, it has formal agreements with EU to obtain Euro issuance rights. In a sense, Monaco can be said to have "0.03% control" over the Euro (example figure).

Liechtenstein's official currency is the Swiss franc. What is the approximate level of control Liechtenstein has over the Swiss franc?

It's either the 0% case or the minority stake case, but I can't figure out which. Liberté2 (talk) 21:51, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

What as the source of your estimates as to certain governments’ “control” (whatever that means) over certain currencies? Did the 1985 Plaza Accord come into consideration when defining “control”? DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 01:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Statements live within contexts. In some context, "US government have 100% control over the US dollar" makes sense. In other contexts, "US government does not have 100% control over the US dollar" makes sense. Liberté2 (talk) 03:17, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I take it that you're meaning that the US government is the only entity with "direct" control over the dollar, i.e. other parties can influence it (e.g. counterfeiters), but the US government can make un-challengeable decisions, both regular decisions such as how many dollars to issue, and peripheral decisions, e.g. if the US government decides to revalue the dollar, nobody can get in the way. Is that anywhere close to your meaning for "100% control"? Nyttend (talk) 09:57, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

If that's the intended meaning, then Monaco has zero control over the euro (not even 0.03%). It only has control over whose face will be minted on a relatively small number of euro coins. — Kpalion^(talk) 12:43, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I generously and magnanimously make available my bank account to administer the meagre pecuniary holdings of Monaco and the resident paupers. Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 13:02, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

My apologies. I opened this PDF[4] from the Euro article, searched for "issue", glanced at the result, saw "1/500th", and moved on. I multiplied France's ECB capital key of 16.6108% by 1/500 to get 0.03%.

I did not realize that "1/500th" only applied to coins, not notes. Liberté2 (talk) 19:02, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Control over the monetary system of the US is exercised by the Federal Reserve. Is it part of the government? Its governors are appointed by the US president and confirmed by the Senate, but none of the three branches of government have direct control over its decisions.  --Lambiam 14:31, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. And look at the mad concept of an European Zentralbank without a U. S. of E..--Ralfdetlef (talk) 06:28, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Liechtenstein cannot change Swiss currency. They can change what they do with it. They could make their own currency. Currently, for collectible purposes, they make coins. Those are pegged to the Swiss currency so the value of the Lichtenstein coin is always the same as the value of the Swiss coin of the same denomination in a legal tender viewpoint (as a collectible, it may be worth more). This is not unique to Lichtenstein. Bermuda has their own currency, but it is pegged to the U.S. dollar. Every day, the Bermuda Ministry of Finance adjusts the value of the Bermuda dollar so it perfectly matches the U.S. dollar. On the island, you will find U.S. currency in use, but you can request Bermuda currency, which is considered a collectible item for tourists. Both Liechtenstein and Bermuda put effort into this relationahip. They could opt out of it and use a different currency. They could choose another country to peg their currency to or they could go independent and adopt their own currency. Because the countries have a very small economy, doing so should not have much effect on the larger foreign currency value. 12.116.29.106 (talk) 13:15, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

It isn’t entirely true that only the US government can create dollars. Print, yes, but that’s not the whole story. In Europe, a US dollar denominated bond, issued in Europe, “creates” money. A loan from HSBC — in US dollars — “creates” money. DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 19:59, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

If they are not holding both hands bunny fingers up asserting this. In my sunny dreams there should have been someone paying for those bounds at one moment. --Askedonty (talk) 21:08, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

No, it's bunny-fingers money un-bunny-fingers. fiveby(zero) 02:08, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Assuming that by "bond", the writer is referring to common bonds issued by governments and companies, the bond is put up for sale. It isn't money. It is a bond. Someone buys the bond using money they have. The person who created that bond takes the money. Then, in the future, the person who purchased the bond can sell it back and hopefully profit. The issuer who buys the bond back has to use money to buy it. At no point is money created. It is basically just a loan with interest. In the same way, loans do not create money. One party gives money they have to another party and, later, the receiver of the money pays it back, usually with interest, using money they have. Nobody is creating money. They are just shoving little scraps of paper back and forth. 12.116.29.106 (talk) 13:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)